Appeal No. 1999-2161 Page 3
Application No.08/475,127
e.g., page 14).2 Accordingly, we consider claim 110 in this
appeal. 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7)(1998).
We have carefully reviewed pages 1-42 of appellants’ brief
and the declaration evidence. We have also carefully reviewed
the examiner’s answer. As a result of this review, we affirm
the aforementioned rejection for the reasons set forth below.
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
a. Summary of appellants’ presentation set forth in their brief
Appellants state that their invention relies on the
discovery that the use of a combination of two classes of scorch
extenders known in the prior art (hydroquinones and sulfur
accelerators, see specification, p. 5, l. 22-23) in combination
with known free radical initiators for crosslinking (organic
peroxides and azo initiator, see specification, p. 6, l. 14-16,
p.9, l. 14-19) and known crosslinking coagents (see
specification, p. 6, l. 9-11), provides a greater than additive
effect on scorch retardation during compounding, while having no
deleterious effect on either final cure time or degree of
crosslinking (see specification, p. 5, l. 7-11). (brief, page
9).
Appellants further state that thus their invention is a
curable thermoplastic and/or elastomeric polymer composition
which provides enhanced safety from premature scorch during any
desired processing prior to cure, without any undesirable
2 We note that appellants discuss claims 74, 77, 91, 92, 93, 94, 102, 104,
107, 108 and 109, on page 23 and 29, collectively, of their brief, and
discuss claims 77, 78, 91, 102, and 107 on page 26 of the brief. As
mentioned, supra, the examiner has determined that these claims contain
allowable subject matter. Hence, we need not consider these claims in this
appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007