Appeal No. 2006-0357
Application No. 10/743,501
not preblending the elastomer. In particular, Examples 1, 2 and
4 add a powder blend of elastomer and filler to the mixing
apparatus.
Appellants’ counsel at Oral Hearing, in response to
questions referring to the elastomer blends of the specification
examples, emphasized that the appealed claims are drafted to
define that some, but not all, of the elastomer added is not
preblended or pretreated. Appellants’ counsel concurred with the
statement that, therefore, the appealed claims encompass a
process wherein 99% of the added elastomer is preblended or
pretreated and only 1% of the elastomer is not preblended or
pretreated. Consequently, we find that the processes within the
scope of the appealed claims are not substantially different than
the process of Naumann wherein 100% of the elastomer is
preblended or pretreated before added to the extruder. Also, we
find that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in
the art to not preblend or pretreat some minor portion of the
elastomer feed of Naumann in order to reduce the cost of the
overall process. Again, appellants have proffered no objective
evidence which demonstrates that processes within the scope of
the appealed claims produce an unexpected advantage relative to
the process of Naumann.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007