Appeal No. 2000-1854
Application No. 08/993,426
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within
the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejections for
essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the
following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants do not dispute that Aketa, like appellants,
discloses a polymer composition for preparing molded articles
exhibiting enhanced mechanical properties which comprises the
presently claimed thermotropic liquid crystalline copolymer,
thermoplastically processable polycarbonate and a phosphorus-
containing compound which serves as a reinforcing agent. As
explained by the examiner, Aketa exemplifies a molding
composition comprising a thermotropic liquid crystalline
copolymer, polycarbonate and phosphorus-containing reinforcing
agent in amounts which fall within appellants' claimed ranges
(see EXAMPLE 1). Aketa does not expressly disclose that the
phosphorus-containing reinforcing agent is mixed with another
reinforcing agent, such as a silicone-modified compound, as
specified in the appealed claims. However, there is no dispute
that Aketa specifically teaches that the molding composition may
also contain silicone resins in an amount, 1%, which falls
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007