Appeal 2007-1895
Application 10/719,489
The issue in this appeal is whether the Examiner has carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness over the combined
teachings of Bilgrien and Boudreau.
The plain language of claim 1 encompasses an integrated process
comprising at least the specified four steps wherein in step A, at least the
indicated composition comprising at least a high consistency
polydiorganosiloxane, silica filler, and, optionally, a treating agent is
blended in a mixer in a highly turbulent, fluidized state at a temperature
ranging from about 80°C to about 350°C to form a flowable
organopolysiloxane powder composition. In step B, the flowable
organopolysiloxane powder composition at a temperature within said range
is directly transferred to a bulk solids cooling device that facilitates
accelerated bulk cooling of the composition to a temperature below a
temperature selected from the group consisting of (i) the decomposition
temperature and (ii) the activation temperature of a catalyst added in step D.
The cooled flowable organopolysiloxane powder composition is massed in a
massing apparatus in step C while step D requires adding a catalyst to the
composition either prior to, during, or after step C. The bulk cooling device
that facilitates cooling can include, among other things, jacketed mixers
(Specification 7:1-11). The process is “integrated” in that the specified steps
are followed as stated, and as Appellants point out, claim 1 encompasses
both “continuous” and “batch” processes (Reply Br. 3).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings of fact from Bilgrien (see
above pp. 3-5). For emphasis, we find this reference would have disclosed
to one of ordinary skill in the art a process for compounding a catalyst
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013