Appeal No. 1998-1909
Application 08/437,489
The examiner argues that Cecchin suggests that the
appellants’ claim 1 component A can be used as a compatibilizer
for Fischer’s polypropylene and EPDM rubber (answer, page 5).
Cecchin discloses that the copolymer can be used as a
compatibilizer for polypropylene and the other materials
disclosed therein, one class of which is unsaturated polymers
(page 7, lines 18-19; page 9, line 27 - page 10, line 5). The
appellants’ claim 1, however, requires that components A and B
are dynamically crosslinked, and the examiner has not explained
why, even if Cecchin would have fairly suggested, to one of
ordinary skill in the art, using the appellants’ component A as a
compatibilizer for polypropylene and EPDM rubber, the reference
would have fairly suggested, to such a person, crosslinking the
appellants’ component A and EPDM rubber in Fischer’s process.
The examiner argues that it would have been prima facie
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Fischer’s
components with Cecchin’s copolymer because Cecchin’s disclosure
embraces use of such components (answer, page 5). The disclosure
in Cecchin relied upon by the examiner appears to be the teaching
that the disclosed copolymers can be co-vulcanized with other
unsaturated polymers (page 7, lines 18-19). The examiner,
however, has not established 1) that “other unsaturated polymers”
-4-4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007