Appeal No. 1999-2161 Page 4
Application No.08/475,127
effects on the time or degree of cure once free radical cure is
initiated. (brief, page 9).
Appellants state that it is the examiner’s stated position
“that the disclosure of Larsen (U.S. 3,335,124) in column 2 of
Groepper recited that hydroquinones, sulfur compounds and free
radical compounds could be used together.” (brief, page 15).
Appellants state that they disagree with the examiner’s stated
position, and believe that this passage of Groepper is simply a
teaching of the alternative use of the named classes of
ingredients for scorch retardation. (brief, page 16).
Appellants further point out that Groepper’s object of
invention, as discussed in column 2, at lines 33 to 42 of
Groepper, is as follows:
The object of the invention is the extension of the scorch
time in the crosslinkage of polymers with organic
peroxides, while avoiding an extension of the crosslinking
time and a deterioration of the crosslinkage; the scorch
time extender is not to be volatile (like hydroperoxide),
not toxic (like N-nitroso compounds) and is not to contain
sulfur (like phenothiazine) in order to avoid unpleasant
odors given off by the crosslinked final product . . .
Appellants state that the examiner has dismissed this clear
statement by Groepper that its invention is not to contain
sulfur containing compounds by asserting that one skilled in the
art would not consider this a warning to avoid all sulfur
compounds, but rather to avoid only those compounds which caused
unpleasant odors and that those in Larsen which do not fall
within this realm would be useful. (brief, page 17).
Applicants further state that they are unaware of any
sulfur compound sulfur accelerator which has been previously
identified by the relevant art as not having an odor generation
problem when employed in conjunction with a free radical
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007