Appeal No. 1999-2161 Page 2
Application No.08/475,127
110. A crosslinkable, scorch retarded composition
consisting essentially of polymer selected from the group
consisting of thermoplastic polymers crosslinkable by peroxide
or an azo compound, elastomeric polymers crosslinkable by a
peroxide or an azo compound, or mixtures of such polymers and
sufficient scorch retarding, curing-crosslinking composition to
provide 0.01 to 30 parts by weight free radical initiator, said
free radical initiator being selected from organic peroxides,
azo compounds and mixtures thereof, said scorch retarding,
curing-crosslinking composition being prepared by mixing, as the
essential ingredients, hydroquinone and sulfur accelerator in a
weight ratio of from 1:500 to 50:1, coagent in a weight ratio of
from 100:1 to 1:100 to the combined weight of hydroquinone and
sulfur accelerator and free radical initiator in a weight ratio
of free radical initiator to combined weight of hydroquinone and
sulfur accelerator of 100:0.05 to 2:1.
The examiner relies on the following prior art reference as
evidence of unpatentability:
Groepper* 5,292,791 March 8, 1994
*We note that the examiner and appellants discuss Larsen (U.S. Patent
No. 3, 335,124) because this reference is discussed in the applied
reference of Groepper.
Claims 72, 73, 79-87, 98, 99, 106, and 110-117 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable in view of
Groepper.
Appellants submit at page 11 of their brief that “all the
claims do not stand or fall together”. However, we find that
the Argument section of appellants’ brief fails to present an
argument that is reasonably specific to any particular claim on
appeal, except for claim 110, with particular focus on the
combination of the ingredients recited in claim 110. (brief,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007