Appeal No. 2002-0693
Application No. 09/073,686
See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1131 (Fed.
Cir. 1994); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651, 176 USPQ 196, 198
(CCPA 1972); In re Azorlosa, 241 F.2d 939, 941, 113 USPQ 156, 158
(CCPA 1957), (it is proper for the court and necessarily, the
board, to consider everything that a reference discloses).
We make the following additional findings of fact and
conclusions of law. We find that Davis teaches the use of:
- EPDM terpolymers having less than 2 weight percent
crystallinity (column 4, lines 18-20) which are more calenderable
(column 4, lines 21-41) in 100 parts by weight (column 5, lines
16-17);
- fillers including clay (a non-combustible material) (column
5, lines 23-25) in the range of 25 - 110 or 125 phr (column 5,
lines 38 - 48)
- 20 - 105 phr of a processing oil (column 7, lines 54 - 56)
- a sulfur containing cure package in the amount of from
about 2 to about 6 phr (column 7, line 63 - column 8, line 21).
-flame retardants including “normally included” antimony
trioxide, decabromo diphenyl oxide, and brominated paraffins.
(column 1, line 64 - column 2, line 16).1
1 The appellants state that “conventional amounts of a flame retardant package
would amount to less than 50 phr.” (Declaration of Davis, paragraph 11, lines 2-
3). Less than 50 phr abuts the claimed range of “about 50.” The Examiner has
not provided us with evidence to establish a higher range is conventional.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007