Appeal No. 1998-1226
Application No. 08/420,330
B. The Rejection over Tennent, Geus, Tomoda and Nabeta
The examiner further applies Nabeta to show the
masterbatch preparation and additional compounding recited in
claim 34 on appeal (Answer, page 4). The examiner finds that
Nabeta teaches that “the polymer may be pre-mixed and the rest
added to the composition.” Id., citing col. 9, ll. 1-25. The
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
the preparations disclosed by Tennent, Geus and Tomoda as
taught by Nabeta for the advantage of keeping the carbon
fibers from being damaged (id.). We disagree.
As correctly argued by appellants (Brief, sentence
bridging pages 17-18), Nabeta does not disclose or suggest the
masterbatch technique as recited in claim 34 on appeal.
Nabeta only discloses that the mixture may be subjected to a 3
pre-mixing process prior to the mixing and kneading step (col.
9, ll. 5-13). The examiner has not explained why this pre-
mixing step of Nabeta would require the compounding of
additional elastomer as recited by claim 34 on appeal. On
3The “mixture” refers to a mixture of copolymer,
plasticizer, and carbon fibers. See Nabeta, col. 8, ll. 59-
67.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007