6
(resorcinol diphosphate) has a flame out time in seconds of less than half that obtained when
polycarbonate is omitted from the composition. Moreover, the essence of the inventive subject matter
described by WO’314 is that, “[i]t has now surprisingly been found that the addition of some of the
above-mentioned polymers, i.e., aromatic polycarbonates and polyetherimides improve the so-called
flame-out time, whereas others, i.e., polyphenylene oxides do increase the flame-out time.” See page
2. Accordingly, it is not seen why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to remove
the aromatic polycarbonate from the composition disclosed by WO’314.
In addition, we find that Gareiss requires a combination of magnesium carbonate and magnesium
calcium carbonate hydrate as a flame retardant composition for a thermoplastic molding composition
comprising a thermoplastic polyester. See column 1, lines 7-12, 45-48, column 2, lines 35-57,
column 8, lines 4-6 and the examples. In our view, the disclosure of WO’314 alone or with Gareiss
fails to provide any rationale or suggestion for the exclusion of one flame retarding material, i.e.,
aromatic polycarbonate, while at the same time adding a second flame retarding agent, i.e., magnesium
calcium carbonate hydrate.
Based upon the above analysis, we conclude that there is no suggestion or teaching for
eliminating the polycarbonate flame retardant of WO’314 and replacing it with the flame retardant of
Gareiss.
The examiner must show reasons that the skilled artisan confronted with the same problems as
the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention would select the elements from the cited
prior art references for combination in the manner claimed. We determine that there is no reason,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007