Appeal 2007-0951
Application 10/740,074
7) Rosenquist discloses forming molten polycarbonate and then adding the
perfluoroalkane sulfonate and cyclic siloxane either sequentially or in
combination (col. 2, l. 62-col. 3, l. 1).
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner found that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to masterbatch the
polycarbonate and salts of Umeda for optimum dispersion of the flame
retardants and to use the siloxanes of the secondary references to improve
flame–retardance and eliminate brittleness upon molding (Answer 4).
Appellants attempt to refute the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness on the basis that the Examiner has not established the requisite
motivation to combine the applied prior art in the manner claimed. We do
not find Appellants’ arguments and evidence persuasive for the reasons
discussed below.
Appellants argue that the applied prior art fails to disclose
manufacturing a pelletized concentrate (Br. 8-9).2 However, claim 24 is not
limited to a pelletized concentrate. Appellants have not presented
convincing arguments or evidence which establishes that the claimed step of
blending a salt with a first polycarbonate to form a concentrate should be
narrowly construed as limited to a pelletized concentrate, or a concentrate
formed by extrusion. Therefore, claim 24 cannot distinguish over the prior
art methods on this basis.
2 Appellants have not provided separate arguments for the claims on appeal.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have elected to decide this
appeal on the basis of independent claim 24.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013