Appeal No. 2005-0960
Application No. 10/053,166
teaches and suggests that said polyfunctional crosslinking
agents, rather than ZnO, are to be used with peroxide
crosslinking agents. The combination is obvious because
both inventions relate to carboxylated nitrile rubber
compositions.
We refer to the brief and to the answer respectively for a
thorough exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellant and by the examiner concerning this rejection.
OPINION
We will sustain the rejection before us for the reasons
expressed in the answer and below.
According to the appellant, “there is no motivation to
combine Hert . . . and Fujii . . . and arrive at the instant
invention” (brief, page 3). A number of arguments have been
advanced in support of this position.
First, the appellant contends that Tables 2 and 4 of the
subject specification evince that “the rubber of the claimed
invention is much harder than the rubber disclosed in Fujii . . .
or Hert . . . ” (brief, page 4). This contention is without
persuasive merit.
Nothing in representative claim 1 requires that the rubber
mixture thereof yield an ultimate product having any particular
hardness value much less the specific hardness values of the
specific rubber mixtures disclosed in Tables 2 and 4. It is here
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007