Appeal No. 2006-0574
Application No. 09/878,405
This evidence is not persuasive of non-obviousness. As correctly noted by the
examiner (Answer, page 7), Comparative Examples 13 and 14 (Table 4 on page 29 of
the specification) merely show the effect of replacing large amounts of the silica (the
active filler containing hydroxyl groups) with large amounts of a filler without hydroxyl
groups (carbon black; see the specification, page 24, ll. 12-14). Thus less crosslinking
(or reaction between the epoxy groups of the ENR and the hydroxyl groups of the filler)
would have been expected by one of ordinary skill in this art. This is taught by
appellants at lines 4-5 of page 29 of the specification, where appellants state that the
mixture of ENR 50, silica and carbon black is capable of crosslinking effectively
“provided that the silica is predominant relative to the total amount of filler added.” We
determine that these comparative examples do not support appellants’ argument that
“the mere combination of the claimed elements does not
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007