Appeal 2006-2614
Application 10/610,605
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Everaerts in view of Zhao. Claims 14-25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Everaerts in view of
Zhao and Topolkaraev.
We affirm.
§ 103(a) Rejection over Everaerts and Zhao
At the outset, we note that Appellants argue the claims subject to this
rejection as a group. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as the representative
claim on which we decide this appeal as to the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection
over Everaerts and Zhao.
The Examiner has found that Everaerts discloses TPE elastomers that
are formed using styrene-block copolymers and photoinitiated crosslinkers
that fall within the scope of the claimed TPE and macro photoinitiator
components of the radiation curable material of claim 1 (Answer 4).
Moreover, the Examiner has found that Zhao teaches the use of processing
oils in forming cross-linked TPE materials (Id.). Based on the combined
teachings of Everaerts and Zhao, the Examiner has determined that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to employ a processing oil in forming the TPE forming
composition of Everaerts so as to reduce the modulus and costs of the TPE
in light of the disclosure of Zhao (Id.).
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s reliance on Zhao for
suggesting the use of a processing oil in forming a radiation cross-linked
material as disclosed in Everaerts (Br. 3-5). Nor do Appellants contend that
the amount of block copolymer and/or the amount of processing oil required
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013