Appeal No. 1998-1790
Application No. 08/711,134
retardant, the examiner has properly explained that it is not
necessary for a finding of obviousness that the prior art
disclose the same purpose, or advantage, of an applicant’s
invention. See In re Dillion, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897,
1901 (Fed Cir. 1990) (en banc), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904
(1991). We fully concur with the examiner that both Fesman and
Stone provide ample motivation for one of ordinary skill in the
art to prepare a flame retardant composition for polymers
comprising a mixture of the recited compounds. We note that
appellants have proffered no objective evidence of
nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which would serve to
rebut the inference of obviousness established by the applied
references.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, the examiner’s decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007