Ex parte VIRDI - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1997-3644                                       Page 2           
          Application No. 08/120,041                                                  


          formula R NCS- or R NS-, wherein both R groups are identical2      2                                                           
          C H  branched alkyl.  Claim 11, the sole independent claim on               
           9 19                                                                       
          appeal, is reproduced below.                                                
               11.  A method for minimizing the production of                         
          nitrosamines in the vulcanisation of rubber, the improvement                
          comprising incorporating an accelerating or vulcanising                     
          effective amount of a compound including a group of the                     
          formula R NCS- or R NS-, wherein the two R groups are identical2      2                                                           
          C H  branched alkyl.                                                        
           9 19                                                                       
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Amidon et al. (Amidon)             3,674,824      July 04,                  
          1972                                                                        
          Mastromatteo et al. (Mastromatteo)      3,678,135       July                
          18, 1972                                                                    
               Claims 11-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                   
          being unpatentable over Amidon or, in a separately stated §                 
          103 rejection, over Mastromatteo.                                           
                                       OPINION                                        
               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                 
          careful consideration to the appellant’s specification and                  
          claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                     
          respective positions articulated by appellant and the                       
          examiner.  In so doing, we find ourselves in agreement with                 









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007