Appeal 2007-2135
Application 10/269,840
antioxidants or an antioxidant substitute such as a microcrystalline wax
(Noecker, col. 5, ll. 7-10; col. 8, ll. 18-49).
One of the problems addressed by Noecker is the problem of
formation of nitrosamines by the amine-containing constitutents in the
conventional sulphur-curing system, constitutents such as carbamate
accelerators. Noecker addresses this problem by eliminating the amine-
containing constituents, and to totally eliminate these amine sources,
Noecker turns to an oxygen-curing system. The problem with the oxygen-
curing system is that it results in a lower strength product and, therefore,
Noecker must add a strength-enhancing agent.
Fruh describes an alternate solution to the problem of nitrosamine
formation by the amine-generating accelerators used in the sulphur-curing
system: Use a sulphur-curing system with an accelerator of a different kind,
an arylguanidinium xanthogenate (Fruh, col. 1, ll. 45-54).
It follows from the above prior art disclosures that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form thin-film products such as
latex gloves using the sulphur-curing system, but with the accelerator of
Fruh when desiring to eliminate nitrosamine formation arising from the
accelerator. One would not then require the strength-enhancing agent of
Noecker. One of the ways in which a claim’s subject matter can be proved
obvious is by establishing that there existed at the time of invention a known
problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the
claims. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d
1385, 1397 (2007).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013