Appeal No. 1998-1862
Application No. 08/644,622
the examiner has presented no other reasons for refuting
appellant’s evidence of nonbvious-ness, we are constrained to
reverse the examiner’s rejection.
This application is remanded to the examiner to evaluate
the specification data relied upon by appellant. Since it
would appear from the present specification that the efficient
vulcanization (EV) rubber was known in the art at the time of
filing the instant application, the examiner should consider
whether the specification data provides a comparison with the
closest prior art. We again direct the examiner’s attention
to
the statement made at page 3 of the reply brief that “Table 1
discloses in substantial detail, the general formula for
conventional rubber as compared to the general formula of EV
rubber.” Also, the examiner should determine whether the
closest prior art is represented by the Wolff reference, and
whether the
conventional natural rubber offered for comparison fairly
represents the teachings of Wolff. The examiner should also
determine whether the specification data establishes that the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007