Appeal No. 1999-2161 Page 5
Application No.08/475,127
(organic peroxide, azo initiator) cure system for thermoplastic
and/or elastomers. (brief, page 18). Appellants also support
this position with reference to paragraph 8 of the Supplemental
Declaration (Paper No. 10) and with reference to paragraphs 16,
17, 18 and 20 of the Groepper Declaration (Paper No. 14).3
(brief, pages 21 and 23).
Appellants further argue that the issue is not would any
sulfur compound give odors in a peroxide cure, but does a sulfur
compound sulfur accelerator exist which would not give odors in
a peroxide cure. Appellants state that there is no evidence of
record that such a compound is known to exist. (brief, page 23).
Appellants emphasize that Groepper provides an accurate
summary of the teachings of Larsen U.S. Patent 3,335,124, which
shows the alternative use of antioxidants (hydroquinones),
sulfur accelerators (e.g. 2-mercaptobenzothiazole and
tetramethyl thiuram disulfide) or amine aldehyde adducts for
scorch retardation in polymer formulations, but suggests no
particular advantage to be gained by their combination. In this
context, appellants refer to paragraph 7 of the Supplemental
Declaration (Paper No. 10) and to paragraphs 12 and 13 of the
Groepper Declaration (Paper No. 14).
Appellants go on to discuss the reference of Ogasawara (and
other references). (brief, pages 18-20). We limit our analysis
3 The Examiner responds to the statement in paragraph 7 of the Supplemental
Declaration (Paper No. 10) by stating that there is no reason or evidence to
indicate that scorch property would be lost if the individually known
ingredients would be combined. (answer, page 4). The examiner responds to
the Groepper Declaration by stating that the prior art discloses that sulfur
accelerators as a class could be used to control scorch (answer, page 5).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007