Ex parte IGNATZ-HOOVER - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1997-3492                                                        
          Application No. 08/428,994                                                  

          effective in bonding rubber to metal and are inclusive of the               
          claimed accelerator compounds.  See Brief, p. 10.  According                
          to Delseth (col. 9, lines 55-62):                                           
               Examples of other rubbers which may be blended with                    
               cis-polyisoprene include poly-1,3-butadiene,                           
               copolymers of 1,3-butadiene with other monomers, for                   
               example styrene, acrylonitrile, isobutylene and                        
               methyl                                                                 
               methacrylate, ethylene-propylene-diene terpolymers,                    
               and halogen-containing rubbers such as chlorobutyl,                    
               bromobutyl and chloroprene rubbers.                                    
               The examiner recognizes that "the claims encompass                     
          essentially the same ingredients in Delseth with exception of               
          PMS [(para-alkylstyrene)]," but nonetheless urges that:                     
               Delseth at column 9, lines 60, 61 states that                          
               halogen-containing rubbers (hcr) are subjected to                      
               formation of crosslinkable composition with same                       
               ingredients and PMS is a hcr. [See Answer, p. 3.]                      
               Appellants argue (Brief, p. 11):                                       
                    The Examiner's reasoning appears to be that                       
               since the p-methyl-styrene elastomers of the                           
               invention are halogenated, it would be obvious to                      
               substitute them for the halogenated elastomers of                      
               Delseth et al, and that they would thus be                             
               crosslinked.  Applicant submits, however, that                         
               nothing in Delseth et al suggests such a                               
               substitution.  Thus, the rejection is a classic                        
               "hindsight" rejection, based on Applicant's own                        
               teaching[.]                                                            
               We agree.  See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ               
          1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("The mere fact that the prior art              
                                          4                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007