Appeal No. 2006-0574
Application No. 09/878,405
art would expect little or no crosslinking (Brief, pages 16, 18 and 22; Reply Brief, page
6). This argument is not well taken. As correctly noted by the examiner (Answer, page
6), Varughese does not teach an “unacceptably low degree of crosslinking” but gives
evidence “for the higher reinforcing ability of silica in ENR” resulting from a
“comparatively good number of cross-links” even in the absence of any conventional
crosslinking agents (page 1849, paragraph bridging left and right columns).
Appellants argue that the mere combination of an elastomeric material containing
epoxide groups and an active filler containing hydroxyl groups does not inherently yield
a composition with the required degree of crosslinking, but the effective degree of
crosslinking is a function of the amount of recited material, time, temperature, and other
materials (Brief, page 18; Reply Brief, page 3).
This argument is also not persuasive. As discussed above, the examiner has
established that Varughese teaches combining the same reactants in the same
amounts and under the same conditions as appellants’ process. Furthermore,
appellants have not addressed claim 62, which is directed to the composition per se of
“elastomeric polymer containing epoxide groups” and an “active filler containing
hydroxyl groups” which is capable of being crosslinked (“being crosslinkable”) without
crosslinking agents to produce an effective degree of crosslinking equal to at least 65%
after no more than 5 minutes of heating at 170°C. See claim 62 on appeal. Even
though Varughese does not explicitly disclose the effective degree of crosslinking, it is
clear that this reference discloses compositions of ENR and silica within the scope of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007