Appeal No. 96-1790
Application No. 08/285,375
that “Kronitex PB-370" provides a flame retardant effect for
polypropylene and ABS resin (see page 8). 6 7
Our reviewing court has stated8
The ultimate question is whether, from the evidence
of the prior art and the knowledge generally available
to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art, there was
in the prior art an appropriate teaching, suggestion,
or motivation to combine components in the way that was
done by the inventor. [Citations omitted].
We agree with the examiner that the prior art provides
sufficient suggestion to combine the references in the manner
proposed by the examiner. Chung specifically teaches the use
of flame retardants “customarily used in the art” (column 8,
line 47) and the evidence cited by the examiner (Green and
6"ABS" is an abbreviation for "acrylonitrile-butadiene-
styrene" resin which is a graft polymer preferred as component
(iii) of appealed claim 1 (see the specification, pages 7-8).
7"Kronitex PB-370" is characterized by Green as a
"brominated phosphate ester" in contrast to "Kronitex PB-460"
which is characterized as a "brominated triaryl phosphate
ester" (see pages 9-10). Appellant discloses that "Kronitex
PB370" is equivalent to "tribromoneopentyl phosphate, i.e.,
the phosphate component (iv) of appealed claim 1 (see the
specification, page 13). Accordingly, for purposes of this
decision, we find "Kronitex PB-370" or "PB-370" to be
equivalent to the phosphate compound listed as component (iv)
in appealed claim 1.
8C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., 157 F.3d 1340, 1361, 48
USPQ2d 1225, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007