Appeal 2007-2135
Application 10/269,840
Früh US 6,136,987 Oct. 24, 2000
McGlothlin US 6,329,444 B1 Dec. 11, 2001
Noecker (‘552) US 6,383,552 B1 May 07, 2002
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claims 1-9 and 11-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over either of Noecker ‘320 or ‘552 in view of Früh (Answer
3).
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the references applied against claim 1 further in view of McGlothlin
(Answer 5).
Appellants contend that the present invention, as well as the Noecker
patents, relates to thin-walled products made from a latex, while Früh is
directed to thick-walled products made from homogenous liquid rubber, and
the teachings from one system cannot be applied to the other type of system
(Br. 4-5).
Appellants contend that combining the Noecker patents with Früh is
unwarranted, since the Noecker patents explicitly exclude sulfur while Früh
includes sulfur (Br. 7; Reply Br. 1-2).
The Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to employ the
sulfur and accelerator taught by Früh in the process of either primary
reference (Answer 4). The Examiner agrees with Appellants that the
Noecker patents “suggest not to use sulfur” but contends that this suggestion
is because conventional accelerators used with sulfur generate undesired
nitrosamines (id.). Therefore, the Examiner contends that given the
accelerator taught by Früh, which accelerator does not generate
nitrosamines, one of ordinary skill in this art “would have had no problem
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013