Appeal No. 2006-2484 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/837,337
reasonably led one of ordinary skill in the art to make a shaped
form of the product composition of DeMoss.
Concerning Smith, appellants do not contest the examiner’s
determination (answer, page 4) that Smith teaches or suggests
that the sealing strip composition thereof can include a sulfur-
containing polymer, curing agent and conductive filler, as
required by representative claim 1. Rather, appellants argue
that Smith is silent as to EMI/RFI shielding capability.
However, given the commonalities between the polysulfide polymer
containing sealing composition of Smith and the composition
called for in representative claim 1, it is reasonable to expect
that the composition of Smith would be characterized by some
EMI/RFI shielding capability. As noted above, representative
claim 1 does not require that the claimed composition possess any
particular degree of EMI/RFI shielding. Nor have appellants
furnished any evidence to establish that the sealing composition
of Smith would be devoid of any EMI/RFI shielding capability.
Appellants argue that Smith is directed to a composition
that is useful for sealing and adhering an automobile windshield
and that Smith discloses a number of ingredients that would not
be useful for aerospace applications. Thus, appellants maintain
that Smith represents non-analogous art. We disagree.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007