Appeal No. 2006-0494 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/285,801
Given the above teachings of Masson and Pike, the examiner
has reasonably determined that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
employ nylon grafting, as taught by Pyke, in forming one of the
component rubbers used in the rubber composition of Masson.
Concerning the additional claim requirement for the inclusion of
nylon in the rubber composition, the examiner notes that some of
the nylon used in grafting, as taught by Pyke, will remain
unreacted given viscosity differences in those materials, a
phenomena discussed in Burlett with regard to grafting
thermoplastics (including nylon) side chains onto rubber (column
3, lines 30-45).
Further concerning the relative amounts of ungrafted and
grafted rubber as broadly called for in representative claim 1,
the examiner explains (answer, page 5) that one of ordinary skill
in the art following the teachings of Masson in combination with
Pyke would have readily arrived at amounts within the claimed
range. We agree. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ
233, 235 (CCPA 1955)(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim
are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover
the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007