Appeal No. 1997-4433
Application No. 08/414,381
blend ingredients. Although the examiner appears to regard
lines 29 through 35 in column 3 of Briddell as suggesting this
modification (see the paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2 of the
supplemental answer), we simply
cannot agree with this opinion. From our perspective, nothing
in this section of patentee’s disclosure would have suggested
the modification in question.
Finally, the examiner points to the table in Example 1 of
Briddell and states that “there appears to be a relationship
established between the low amount of EPDM and the increase in
peel strength” (answer, page 5). This is clearly incorrect,
while we appreciate the examiner’s point that the 16% EPDM
concentration in Run 6 yields the highest room temperature
peel strength (which is somewhat below the here claimed
range), it also yields the lowest 70EC temperature peel
strength (which is far below the here claimed range). In
addition, a study of the other EPDM concentrations in
patentee’s other Runs (i.e., Runs 1-5 and 7) militates against
the examiner’s viewpoint that Briddell’s table establishes a
relationship between lower amounts of EPDM and increased peel
strength.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007