Appeal No. 1999-0989 9
Application No. 08/265,267
finding to conclude that the substitution of the elastomer of Winkler for that of Gabrick
would have been obvious. Gabrick, however, discloses a specific elastomer directed to a
block copolymer of styrene, and an ethylene elastomer, particularly ethylene butylene. See
Gabrick, column 2, lines 25-27. In contrast Winkler states that “[i]nstead and in addition
to butadiene, ethylene, propylene and butylene can be copolymerized with styrene.” See
column 2, lines 5-7. We conclude that there is no disclosure therein for the preparation of
a block copolymer. Nor is there a disclosure of the particular block copolymers disclosed
by Gabrick. Hence, there is no reason to substitute the polystyrene-butadiene resin of
Winkler for the particular elastomers disclosed by Gabrick. Accordingly, there is no reason
to combine the disclosure of Gabrick with Winkler.
Based upon these findings and analysis, the rejection of claims 2, 5, 9, 12, and 21
over Gabrick in view of Winkler is reversed.
The Rejection of Claims 3 and 4 over Gabrick and Winkler in view of Sugimori
Claims 3 and 4 depend on claim 2. We concluded supra that Winkler was not
combinable with Gabrick. Sugimori is not directed to elastomeric material and accordingly,
does not overcome the deficiencies of Winkler. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of
claims 3 and 4.
The Rejection of Claim 6 over Nakano in view of Gabrick
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007