Appeal No. 2002-0173
Serial No. 09/273,040
Bivens et al. (Bivens) 4,280,943 Jul. 28, 1981
Talbot 4,350,783 Sep. 21, 1982
Ceska 4,722,976 Feb. 02, 1988
Gebauer et al. (Gebauer) DE 3,226,602 Jan. 19, 1984
(German Patent)
Claims 1 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Bivens or Talbot in view of Ceska or
Gebauer.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the brief, the reply brief and
below, we reverse the above-noted rejection.
Critical to the issue in present case is rather the
secondary reference Ceska is properly combinable with Bivens or
Talbot (hence, we do discuss the other secondary reference of
Gebauer). On page 3 of the answer the examiner states that Ceska
teaches the use of sugars as catalyst or accelerators with a
peroxide initiator. On page 4 of the answer, the examiner
proposes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to add a sugar to the composition of Bivens or Talbot
in order to cure the crosslinking reaction of the crosslinking
agent initiated by the peroxide.
On page 8 of the brief, appellants argue that Ceska teaches
that the catalyst is the copolymerizing components (2)(a)and
(2)(b). Appellants state that therefore it is apparent that the
catalyst disclosed in Ceska catalyzes the copolymerization of two
monomers. The polymer that is formed, not the catalyst or the
accelerator of the catalyst, improves the curing of the polymer
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007