Appeal No. 96-1790
Application No. 08/285,375
of phosphates alone listed as flame retardants by Watanabe
does not negate the teaching that the specific
tris(tribromoneopentyl) phosphate component of the claims on
appeal is taught to be a flame retardant customarily used in
polycarbonate molding compositions. In re Merck & Co. v.
Biocraft Labs., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed.
Cir. 1989); In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500, 226 USPQ 1005,
1008 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of
the applied prior art. Appellant has submitted evidence of
“unexpected improved chemical resistance” in rebuttal (Brief,
pages 2-4 and 6). This evidence consists of two Tables from
page 13 of the specification (Brief, page 3). As noted by the
examiner on page 4 of the Answer, this comparative evidence
only contains one specific polycarbonate, one specific ester,
and one specific graft polymer. Appellant has not shown why
this evidence would be predictive of or commensurate with the
scope of the claims on appeal. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,
276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, appellant
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007