Appeal No. 2005-2413
Application No. 09/912,865
rather, one skilled in the art would understand that the rubber
would show better retention of properties, i.e, reversion
resistance" (page 6 of Brief, penultimate paragraph). However,
it is not necessary for a finding of obviousness that Vulcuren
teaches an improvement in properties. It is sufficient that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the benefit of
the reversion resistance taught by Vulcuren. We note that
appellant has not proffered any objective evidence of
nonobviousness, including evidence of unexpected improvement in
properties resulting from the claimed rubbery insert containing
the additive.
Appellant also maintains that Vulcuren teaches that the
additive "should be used with little or no sulfur, i.e., from
about 0 to about 0.5 phr" (page 7 of Brief, first paragraph).
Based on examples given by Vulcuren, appellant concludes that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been led away from using
any amount of the additive in the composition of Oare which
requires that 0.5 to 8 phr of sulfur be used, preferably 3 to
5 phr. The examiner, however, has established the fallacy of
this argument. As emphasized by the examiner, Vulcuren expressly
teaches that "[t]o maintain comparable crosslinking density, the
usual amount of sulphur should be slightly reduced" (page 2, last
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007