Appeal 2007-0951
Application 10/740,074
there was motivation to combine the references because of certain
statements that were made in the references” (Br. 13). According to
Dr. Singh, the experiments in Declaration A show that “the addition of the
flame retardant salt in masterbatch form does not improve the impact
properties as claimed by the Examiner” (Appendix B, ¶ 7, first occurrence).
Dr. Singh further states that the experiments in Declaration B demonstrate
that “the addition of the cyclic siloxane to the flame retardant polycarbonate
composition containing a flame retardant salt does not improve the impact
properties, but instead causes a decrease in the softening temperature of the
composition which is generally undesirable” (Appendix B, ¶ 7, second
occurrence).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the Declarations are not
persuasive because the experimental data is not commensurate in scope with
the claims. For example, only one flame retardant salt was used in the
experiments, while claim 24 broadly recites “blending a flame retardant salt
with a first polycarbonate.”
ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-9 and 21-29 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Umeda in view of Rosenquist or Mark and further in view
of Ogoe ‘280 or Ogoe ‘479 is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013