Appeal No. 2006-0369 Παγε 17
Application No. 10/225,395
213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982). Thus, we are in complete agreement
with the examiner’s rebuttal position set forth in the paragraph
bridging pages 20 and 21 of the answer.
We note that no evidence of unexpected results has been
presented, much less persuasively asserted by appellants in the
brief.
Consequently, on this record, appellants have not persuaded
us of any error in the examiner’s rejection based on the
arguments furnished in the briefs. It follows that we shall
sustain the examiner’s obviousness rejection of appealed claims
1, 3, 6-8, 15, 24, 27 and 35 over Urban in view of Valaitis.
Turning to the examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 4,
9, 14, 16-23, 25, 26, 29 and 31-33 over Urban taken with Valaitis
and Yokono, we note that appellants argue the so rejected claims
as a group. Thus, we select claim 29 as the representative claim
on which we shall decide this appeal as to this ground of
rejection.
Independent representative claim 29 requires an article with
a substrate having EPDM disposed thereon and including a cross-
linking agent that does not contain sulfur. Representative claim
29 was found unpatentable over the combination of Urban taken
with Valaitis for reasons discussed above and in the answer.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007