Appeal 2007-0103
Application 10/603,023
compositions of Corvasce because Huynh-Tran successfully exemplifies
"incorporating a maleinized polybutadiene in a similar rubber composition
with increased adhesion to polymeric fibers" (page 6 of Answer, first
paragraph).
Appellants contend that Huynh-Tran's teaching of using a maleinized
polybutadiene to improve adhesion of the rubber composition to a polyester
fiber provides no teaching or suggestion that "such a rubber composition
including maleinized polybutadiene may advantageously be used with a
starch/synthetic plasticizer composite filler as taught by Corvasce" (page 5
of Br., second full sentence). Appellants maintain that "[t]he Examiner has
not established that a rubber composition that shows advantageous adhesion
to an epoxy adhesive treated polyester fiber as in Huynh-Tran necessarily
will show advantageous interaction with a starch/synthetic plasticizer
composite filler as in the present claims" (page 5 of Br., third full sentence).
Appellants further argue that "[w]ithout more to establish the similarity of
the polyester fiber as taught in Huynh-Tran to the starch/synthetic plasticizer
composite filler as in the present claims, or the similarity of the adhesion to
polyester fiber compared to the adhesion to a starch/synthetic plasticizer
composite filler, the Examiner's proposed motivation for combining the
teachings of Huynh-Tran and Corvasce … fails" (page 5 of Br., penultimate
fill sentence). Also, as noted above, Appellants devote pages 6-8 of the
Brief to arguments directed to Specification data which demonstrates
unexpected results.
The Examiner's sole response to Appellants' arguments is the
statement that "[s]ince there is no negative teaching in Corvasce et al. to
teach one of ordinary skill in the art not to incorporate the maleinized
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007