Appeal 2006-0886
Application 10/151,093
For the reasons presented by the Examiner in the Answer and the
reasons provided below, we affirm.
OPINION
We first focus on claim 1. This claim requires a rubber composition
including a number of additives in particular concentration ranges along
with a resorcinol resin and a methylene donor. There is no dispute that, as
found by the Examiner, Lickes suggests forming a rubber composition
having the claimed ingredients in concentrations within the claimed ranges
or in overlapping amounts. Lickes specifically suggests adding 0-250 phr
carbon black (col. 7, l. 57 to col. 8, l. 2), 10-250 phr silica filler (col. 5,
ll. 23-27), 0.5-8 phr sulfur vulcanizing agent (col. 8, ll. 25-29), and about
0.01 to about 0.35 wt.% of an organo-cobalt compound rubber-to-metal
adhesion promoter (col. 9, l. 61 to col. 10, l. 33).1 The addition of resorcinol
as a methylene acceptor and the addition of a methylene donor are also
suggested (col. 9, ll. 13-18). Natural rubber is a preferred rubber for the
rubber component (col. 2, ll. 40-41). We emphasize that while Appellants
state that conventionally more sulfur is used in such rubber compositions
and that they are able to lower the amount of sulfur by adding resorcinol and
methylene donor, Lickes suggests using sulfur in amounts encompassing the
claimed amounts and also suggests adding resorcinol and methylene donor.
Claim 1 is directed to a breaker comprising the rubber composition.
Lickes suggests using the rubber composition in various components of a
1 As acknowledged by Appellants, the term “phr” is defined by Lickes as
“the parts by weight of a respective material per 100 parts by weight of
rubber, or elastomer.” (Br. 5; Lickes, col. 3, ll. 37-39). The concentrations
are thus directly comparable to those claimed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007