Appeal No. 2002-0693
Application No. 09/073,686
along with fillers in preparing EPDM roofing coverings. Thus, the
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have used
the Valaitis flameproofing composition (already acceptable to
Davis but for cost and environmental considerations) in Davis.
(Paper #3, pages 1-2).
The appellants’ first position on appeal is that Davis is
expressly devoid of the flame proofing additive package found in
the instant claims, and consequently teaches away from the present
invention. (Appeal Brief, page 7, lines 3-12).
This first argument is unpersuasive. This teaching relied
upon by the appellants cannot be taken in isolation. Davis
includes teachings of a limited capacity for fillers in
thermoplastic membranes (column 2, lines 5-8), a savings in labor
and material costs (column 2, lines 16-17), and environmental
benefits (column 13, lines 48-52) by avoiding the known anti-flame
additives. However, Davis also teaches the suitability of
antimony trioxide and brominated compounds as normally
incorporated into roofing membrane compositions (column 1, line 64
- column 2, line 8).
We find that, considering the reference as a whole, on
balance, Davis teaches that the inclusion of the flame-retardant
compositions, in reduced amounts, is acceptable and desirable.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007