Appeal No. 2001-1762
Application No. 09/226,903
vulcanizing a dispersion of fine particles of liquid rubber
incompatible with the epoxy resin in the epoxy resin with a
vulcanizing agent. (Column 2, lines 47-52.)
The examiner’s basic position is stated as follows (answer,
page 4):
It would have been obvious to add the vulcanized
rubber of the German patent [Magnani] and Sugimori et
al as an additive or extender of Schappert et al in
order to improve the noise absorption (German patent,
page 3, first column, third full paragraph),
flexibility and mechanical strength (Sugimori et al,
col. 1, lines 24-30 and col. 2, lines 22-30).
We cannot agree. As pointed out by the appellants (appeal
brief, pages 6-7 and 11-14), the composition described in
Schappert is completely different from the composition described
in either Magnani or Sugimori.
In particular, Schappert does not teach the use of an
organic carrier. Also, Schappert’s composition contains a
thermoplastic polyester that is non-reactive and is insoluble in
the epoxide group containing material (a). Further, Schappert’s
composition contains a curing agent (e.g., an aliphatic,
cycloaliphatic, or aromatic polyfunctional amine) adapted to
cure the one or more epoxide group containing material (a).
By contrast, Magnani discloses a composition containing a
resin such as an epoxide resin, an organic carrier, and a filler
in the form of particles of natural gum or synthetic rubber
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007