Appeal No. 1999-2161 Page 6
Application No.08/475,127
to the applied reference of Groepper, as it is this reference
that is applied in the rejection of record.
b. Our analysis
It is not disputed that each of the ingredients recited in
claim 110 are known. (brief, page 14). Also, it is well settled
that it is generally a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary
skill in the art to combine two or more materials when each is
taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose. In
re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA
1980). Hence, it is enough that Groepper teaches that (a)
antioxidants or (b) accelerators or (c) compounds having both
antioxidant function and accelerator, function as a class of
retarders to extend scorch time. To combine two or more of
these materials for the same purpose within the ambit of one of
ordinary skill in the art is a matter of obviousness. Id.
Hence, the issue of whether the examiner is correct or incorrect
regarding his interpretation of Groepper as stated on pages 3-4
of the answer is moot.
With respect to Groepper’s disclosure of the use of a
compound that “is not to contain sulfur”, in order to avoid
unpleasant odors, we find that this disclosure suggests that
sulfur-containing compounds have been used in the art, however,
odor problems have been known to be associated with their use,
and hence, one should avoid their use in order to avoid odor
problems. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510
(CCPA 1966)(court affirmed rejections based on art which
rendered the claimed invention obvious to those of ordinary
skill in the art despite the fact that the art teachings relied
upon were phrased in terms of a non-preferred embodiment or as
being unsatisfactory for the intended purpose).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007