Appeal No. 96-1790
Application No. 08/285,375
components (i), (ii) and (iii) as recited in claim 1 on appeal
(Brief, pages 4 and 6). Furthermore, appellant does not3
dispute that both Chung and Hongo teach that flame retardant
additives may be added to these molding compositions, although
no particular additive is specified (Id.). However, appellant
disputes the combination of Chung or Hongo with the secondary
references to Green and Watanabe. Appellant argues that,
while the elements of the claimed composition have been
disclosed, “there needs to be a motivation shown, or an
explanation provided, for the combination” of the references
(Brief, page 5).
The examiner has applied the secondary references to
Green and Watanabe to show that component (iv) as recited in
appealed claim 1 is a known flame retardant for polycarbonate
compositions (Answer, page 4). The examiner states that Green
teaches brominated phosphate esters as flame retardants and
Watanabe teaches tris(tribromoneopentyl) phosphate for use as 4
3Component (v) recited in claim 1 on appeal is optional
and appellant presents no arguments regarding this component.
4There is no dispute that this compound is the same
compound as expressed by the formula recited in component (iv)
of appealed claim 1.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007