5
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability,” whether on the grounds of anticipation or
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On
the record before us, the examiner relies upon a combination of two references to reject the claimed
subject matter and establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The basic premise of the rejection is
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that, “[e]limination of the flame-out
time reducing polymer and its function in the compositions taught by WO’314 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Answer, page 3. It is further the examiner’s position
that, “it would have been obvious to include magnesium calcium carbonate hydrate in the compositions
taught by WO’314 in order to obtain further improvements in mechanical and flame retardant
properties.” Id. We disagree.
We find that WO’314 discloses a composition comprising a blend of polybutylene terephthalate
and an aromatic carbonate or a blend of a polybutylene terephthalate and a polyetherimide. See page
2, lines 6-10. The polymer blend is combined with at least one flame retardant agent exemplified by
tetraphenyl resorcinol diphosphate. See page 3, lines 6-8 and the examples. We further find that
WO’314 discloses that additives may be present including fillers, pigments and further flame retarding
agents. See page 3, line 25-31.
Table A of WO’314, however, discloses that a composition comprising PBT (polybutylene
terephthalate), PC, (aromatic polycarbonate), hindered phenol and RDP
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007