Appeal No. 1999-2488
Application No. 08/841,027
Moreover, it is appropriate to clarify certain incorrect
findings of fact made by the appellants in presenting their above
noted arguments. First, neither of the independent claims on
appeal (or for that matter any of the dependent claims on appeal)
requires that the phosphate component of the composition recited
in the here claimed method constitute a monophosphate fire
retardant as the appellants seem to believe. Additionally, the
appellants are clearly incorrect in stating that Gosens’
composition does not include a copolymeric resin of the type here
claimed (i.e., the resin recited in step (c) of the independent
claims). This resin is unambiguously disclosed as a component of
Gosens’ composition in lines 1-29 of column 4.
Finally, the appellants present the following argument on
page 11 of the brief:
The Examiner’s statement that “[a]ll of applicants claim
limitations are met” is erroneous because of Appellants’
clause reciting “whereby said composition retains about 80%
of the original Izod impact strength after one week aging at
63 oC at 100% relative humidity (Appendix, claim 9).” None
of the cited prior art suggests or recites this condition.
Initially, it is appropriate to point out that appealed
independent claim 10 contains no recitation concerning such a
“condition.” In any event, as correctly indicated by the
examiner, the respective compositions of Yang and Buysch
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007