Appeal 2006-2557
Application 10/004,978
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability, as well as the Specification and Declaration evidence relied
upon in support thereof. However, we concur with the Examiner that the
claimed subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of Section 103 in view of the
prior art considered as a whole. Accordingly, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer.
There is no dispute that Yamamoto, like Appellant, discloses a
polycarbonate-based nonflammable resin composition comprising the
presently claimed alkoxy group-containing organopolysiloxane that
corresponds to the recited formula. As recognized by the Examiner,
Yamamoto does not disclose the inclusion of the claimed phosphoric ester in
the polycarbonate-based composition. However, as acknowledged by
Appellant, Fuhr discloses a polycarbonate-based nonflammable resin
composition comprising a silicone resin and a phosphoric ester flame
retardant that falls within the scope of claim 1. Accordingly, since Fuhr
teaches the claimed phosphoric ester as a flame retardant in a polycarbonate-
based resin composition, and Yamamoto, as well as the present
Specification, evidence that phosphorus-containing compounds were known
as flame retardants, we fully concur with the Examiner that it would have
been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include the
claimed phosphorous ester in the polycarbonate composition of Yamamoto
as a flame retardant.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Yamamoto’s
reference to the exclusion of phosphorus as a flame retardant is a teaching
away that negates a conclusion of obviousness. To be sure, Yamamoto
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007