Appeal 2006-2557
Application 10/004,978
teaches the advantage of not using a phosphorus-containing flame retardant
that evolves harmful gasses when burned, but one of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that phosphorus-containing flame retardants like
those disclosed in Fuhr can be utilized in applications where harmful gasses
can be tolerated. We note that Appellant sets forth no argument, let alone
evidence, that the claimed phosphorus-containing composition does not
produce harmful gasses when burned. Just as it is a matter of obviousness
for one of ordinary skill in the art to eliminate a feature of the prior art along
with its attendant advantage, it is a matter of obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to incorporate a feature of the prior art along with its
disadvantage. One of ordinary skill in the art has sufficient expertise to
weigh the advantages and disadvantages of using a known component.
Appellant also maintains “Fuhr does not teach that the phosphorus
compounds by themselves are sufficient to result in a composition that is
self-extinguishing [but] Fuhr teaches that the combination of specific types
of phosphorous compounds and specific types of silicone resins produce this
result” (Br. 5, ¶ 2). However, as explained by the Examiner “even though
more beneficial or improved results are obtained when both the phosphorous
compounds and the siloxane compound are present in the aromatic
polycarbonate based composition, addition of the phosphorous compound by
itself still results in significant improvement of flame retardant properties”
(Answer 7, ¶ 2). As for Appellant’s argument that “[t]he silicone resin of
Fuhr and the organosiloxane of Yamamoto have different properties” (Br. 5,
¶ 3), we refer to the analysis at page 8 of the Examiner’s Answer as a
reasonable basis for concluding that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have reasonably expected that the inclusion of Fuhr’s phosphorus
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007