Ex Parte Araujo Da Silva et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2017

12742030 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/742,030 08/13/2010 Jose Carlos Araujo Da Silva 338180-00425 1468
35161 7590 03/28/2017
DTrKTNSON WRIGHT PT T C EXAMINER
1825 Eye St., NW SCOTT, ANGELA C
Suite 900
WASHINGTON, DC 20006 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1767
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2017 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSE CARLOS ARAUJO DA SILVA, LAURE BELIN, KARINE
LONGCHAMBON, and NICOLAS SEEBOTH1
Appeal 2015-000703
Application 12/742,030
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, HOUSEL, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and JENNIFER R.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s decision2 finally rejecting claims 1-19, which are all of the claims
pending in the above-identified application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Compagnie Generale des
Etablissements Michelin and Michelin Recherche et Technique S.A. Appeal Brief
filed May 16, 2014 (“App. Br.”) at 1.
2 Final Action entered October 18, 2013 (“Final Act.”) at 2—4; the Examiner’s
Answer entered August 13, 2014 (“Ans.”) at 2-4.
Appeal 2015-000703
Application 12/742,030
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal is directed to “diene elastomer compositions
reinforced with an inorganic filler, such as silica, which can be used in particular in
the manufacture of t[i]res or semi-finished products for t[i]res, such as treads.”
Spec. 1,11. 5-7. These elastomer (rubber) compositions further include
“processing aids capable of improving the processing property and reducing the
viscosity in the raw state of such rubber compositions, more particularly.. .covering
agents capable of bonding via covalent bonds to the surface functional sites of the
inorganic filler.” Spec. 1,11. 9-12.
Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in illustrative claims 1 and
17,3 which are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief
(with disputed limitations in italicized form):
1. Rubber composition based on at least a diene elastomer, a
reinforcing inorganic filler, a coupling agent and a hydroxysilane of
formula (I):
R5 (R'")nSi(OH)3.n
in which
n is equal to 0, 1 or 2;
represents a hydrocarbon group having at least 4
carbon atoms;
3 Appellants present arguments directed to claims 1 and 17 only and do not present
any separate arguments against claims 2-16, 18, and 19. App. Br. 4-17 and Reply
Brief filed October 10, 2014 (“Reply Br.”) at 2-6. Therefore, for purposes of this
appeal, we limit our discussion to claims 1 and 17. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2012).
2
Appeal 2015-000703
Application 12/742,030
2
R represents an alkyl having from 1 to 4 carbon
2
atoms, the R alkyls being identical or different if n is equal
to 2.
17. Process for preparing a rubber composition according to
claim 1, the said process comprising the following stages:
incorporating in a diene elastomer, during a first “non­
productive” stage, at least one reinforcing inorganic filler and one
coupling agent, the combined mixture being kneaded
thermomechanically until a maximum temperature of between
110 °C and 190°C is reached;
cooling the combination to a temperature of less than 100°C;
subsequently incorporating, during a second "productive"
stage, a crosslinking (or vulcanizing) system;
kneading the combined mixture until a maximum temperature
of less than 120 °C is reached, and wherein a hydroxysilane of
formula (I):
R,(R2)I,Si(OH)3..„
in which:
n is equal to 0, 1 or 2;
r ! represents a hydrocarbon group having at least 4 carbon
atoms;
2
R represents an alkyl having from 1 to 4 carbon atoms, the
2
R alkyls being identical or different if n is equal to 2,
is additionally incorporated during the non-productive stage and/or
the productive stage.
App. Br., Claims Appendix 1,3, and 4.
3
Appeal 2015-000703
Application 12/742,030
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants request review of, the following
grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1-16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the disclosure of Araujo Da Silva4 (WO 2006/125533 A1 published Nov. 30,
2006); and
2. Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the disclosure
of Araujo Da Silva. Final Act. 2-A\ Ans. 2-A\ App. Br. 4.
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence on this appeal record in light of the
respective positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellants, we determine that
a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s determination that
Araujo Da Silva would have rendered the subject matter recited in claims 1-19
obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of the above claims substantially for the reasons set
forth in the Final Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for
emphasis and completeness.
1. Claims 1-16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. $103(a)
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter recited in claims 1-16, 18,
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner relies upon the disclosure of Araujo
Da Silva. Final Act. 2; Ans. 2. The Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute,
that Araujo Da Silva “teaches a rubber composition comprising at least one
4 Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s reliance on US 2009/0186961 A1
published in the name of Araujo Da Silva et al. on July 23, 2009 as the English
translation of WO 2006/125533 Al. Compare Final Act. 2 and Ans. 2 with App
Br. 4. Our reference to Araujo Da Silva is to the English translation of record,
namely US 2009/0186961 Al published on July 23, 2009.
4
Appeal 2015-000703
Application 12/742,030
isoprene [(diene)] elastomer, at least one inorganic filler as reinforcing filler and a
coupling system containing compounds I and II, where compound I (covering
agent) is a hydroxysilane [embraced by the hydroxysilane formula recited in claim
1].” Compare Final Act. 2-3 and Ans. 2, with App. Br. 4-17; Araujo Da Silva ^fl[
44, 73-77, 229. As correctly explained by the Examiner, Araujo Da Silva’s
hydroxylated silane formula: (R1)t(Si)(E)4-t, with R1 being defined as a linear or
branched Ci-Cg alkyl, E being defined as an hydroxyl, and t being defined as either
1, 2, or 3, includes some of the hydroxysilanes encompassed by the recited
hydroxysilane of formula (I): R1(R2)nSi(OH)3.n, with n being defined as 0, 1 or 2,
R1 being defined as a hydrocarbon group having at least 4 carbon groups,
preferably 5 to 36 carbon atoms, and R2 being defined as an alkyl having 1 to 4
carbon atoms (the R2 alkyls are identical or the same if n is equal to 2). Compare
Final Act. 3 and Ans. 2, with App. Br. 4-17; Araujo Da Silva ^fl[ 73-77.
Specifically, “[w]hen t is 1, R1 is a Cs-Cg alkyl and E is hydroxyl, the structure [of
Araujo Da Silva’s chemical compound] is (Cs-Cg alkyl)Si(OH)3 which reads on
[the chemical structure of claim 1, when n is zero, and on] structure VIII of
[dependent] claims 7 and 8 where m is 4-7.” Compare Final Act. 3 and Ans. 2,
with App. Br. 4-17. We note that Araujo Da Silva, like the claimed subject matter,
is directed to “diene elastomer compositions reinforced with an inorganic filler,
such as silica, intended for the manufacture of t[i]res or t[i]re semi-finished
products, in particular for the treads of these t[i]res.” Compare Araujo Da Silva 1
1 with Spec. 1,11. 5-7.
Given the above teachings, we find no reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to select the
recited hydroxysilane included by the chemical structure (Cs-Cg alkyl)Si(OH)3 as
hydroxysilane compound 1 (covering agent) of Araujo Da Silva’s rubber
5
Appeal 2015-000703
Application 12/742,030
composition that further comprises at least one isoprene [(diene)] elastomer, at
least one inorganic filler as reinforcing filler and a coupling compound II (the
recited coupling agent), with a reasonable expectation of successfully using the
rubber composition for manufacturing tires or tire treads. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft
Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“That the ’813 patent discloses a
multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less
obvious. This is especially true because the claimed composition is used for the
identical purpose.”); see also, In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971)
(obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was “huge, but
it undeniably include[d] at least some of the compounds recited in appellant's
generic claims and [was] of a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as
appellant's additives”); In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Where
a skilled artisan merely pursues ‘known options’ from a ‘finite number of
identified, predictable solutions,’ obviousness under § 103 arises.” (quoting KSR
Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)).
Appellants first contend that Araujo Da Silva does not specifically
exemplify the hydroxysilane recited in claim 1 because its examples are directed to
using alkoxy groups, rather than an hydroxyl group, as the E substituent of the
hydroxylated silane formula: (R1)t(Si)(E)4.t. However, as correctly recognized by
the Examiner, Araujo Da Silva is not limited by its examples. Merck & Co. v.
Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d at 807 (“[T]he fact that a specific [embodiment] is
taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art,
including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered.” {quoting In re Lamberti,
545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)); In re Fracalossi, 691 F.2d 792, 794 n.l (CCPA
1982)(A prior art reference’s disclosure is not limited to its examples.). When all
of the disclosures in Araujo Da Silva are evaluated for what they would have fairly
6
Appeal 2015-000703
Application 12/742,030
taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, we find no reversible error in
the Examiner’s finding that Araujo Da Silva teaches or would have suggested the
suitability of the recited hydroxysilanes included by the chemical structure (Cs-Cg
alkyl)Si(OH)3 for use as hydroxysilane compound 1 (covering agent) of its rubber
composition in manufacturing tires or tire treads. Final Act. 3; Ans. 2. Stated
differently, Araujo Da Silva teaches or suggests that the recited hydroxysilanes
(Cs-Cg alkyl)Si(OH)3 included by its hydroxylated silane formula: (R1)t(Si)(E)4_t
are interchangeable with both the other hydroxysilanes and the alkoxysilanes
included by its hydroxylated silane formula of (R1)t(Si)(E)4_t in forming a rubber
composition useful for manufacturing tires and tire treads. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d
1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[Cjase law does not require that a particular
combination must be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in
the prior art in order to provide [the] motivation [or reason] for the current
invention.”)
Appellants contend that a Rule 132 Declaration executed by Araujo Da
Silva, one of the named inventors of the present application and one of the named
inventors of the prior art discussed above (“Declarant”), on September 25, 2012
(“Rule 132 Declaration”), demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have been led to select the recited hydroxysilanes from those included by the
general formula disclosed by Araujo Da Silva. App. Br. 5-7 and 11-13 and Reply
Br. 2-\. In this regard, Appellants urge that “alkoxysilanes [exemplified in Araujo
Da Silva] and hydroxysilanes [included by Araujo Da Silva] are not considered to
be equivalent with respect to reacting with silica particles in rubber compositions.”
App. Br. 5-6. Appellants further urge that one of ordinary skill in the art “would
have expected that the rapid condensation or [self-condensation] of Si-OH
functional groups would occur so rapidly that the hydroxysilane would not have
7
Appeal 2015-000703
Application 12/742,030
time to reach the silica particle surfaces in the mixing process.” App. Br. 6.
Appellants’ arguments appear to rely on Declarant’s statements at paragraphs 5-10
and 12 in the Rule 132 Declaration, which are provided below for convenience:
5. It is my understanding that the Examiner contends that one
having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a
hydroxysilane covering agent, as recited in the claims of the above-
mentioned patent application, based upon the disclosure in the
primary reference of covering agents having formula (R1)t(Si)(E)4-t,
where E can be hydroxyl or hydrolysable groups, such as alkoxy.
6. With respect to use in a rubber composition as coupling
agents for silica reinforcing filler particles, hydroxysilanes and
alkoxysilanes would not have been regarded as equivalents by those
having ordinary skill in this art, and one having ordinary skill in this
art and in view of the primary reference would not have been led to
select a hydroxysilane as a covering agent rather than the
alkoxysilanes exemplified in the primary reference.
7. In the scientific literature, the reaction of an alkoxysilane in
a rubber composition containing silica particles occurs via a
mechanism that can be visualized in two steps. The first step involves
a hydrolysis of the alkoxy group of the alkoxysilane occurring at the
surface of the silica particle. The second step is a condensation
reaction between the Si-OH functional group on the silica surface and
the Si-OH functional group resulting from the hydrolysis of the
alkoxysilane. This mechanism is indicated schematically in the
reaction diagram attached hereto as Appendix 1, taken from
Annemleke fen Brinka, Silica Reinforced Tyre Rubbers, PhD Thesis,
University of Twente, p. 21 (2002).
8. The condensation reaction between the Si-OH functional
groups has very fast kinetics compared to the kinetics of the overall
reaction between an alkoxysilane and the Si-OH functional group on
the surface of a silica particle.
9. Because of the rapid kinetics of the hydroxysilane
condensation reaction, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
8
Appeal 2015-000703
Application 12/742,030
reasonably expected that introduction of an hydroxysilane directly
into a rubber mixture would result in rapid self-condensation of the
hydroxysilane onto itself, producing a siloxane, and preventing the
hydroxysilane from reaching the silica surface and reacting with the
Si-OH functional groups located there.
10. In addition, the presence of acidic compounds (e.g.,
stearic acid) or basic compounds (e.g., sulfonamide accelerators)
typically found in rubber-silica mixtures such as tire rubber
compositions would be expected to increase the rate of condensation.
See Rappoport et al., ed., The Chemistry of Organic Silicon
Compounds, vol. 3, John Wiley & Sons (2001).
12. The increased rate of condensation of hydroxysilane
compounds added directly a rubber composition would lead one
having ordinary skill in the art to reasonably expect that such
compounds, added directly to a rubber composition rather than
forming in situ by hydrolysis at the silica surface, would be unable to
satisfactorily perform a covering function with respect to the silica
particles.
Compare the Rule 132 Declaration || 5-10 and 12, with App. Br. 5-7 and 11-13
and Reply Br. 2-\. However, the record indicates that the Declarant (Araujo Da
Silva) also stated that the hydroxysilanes were suitable for a rubber composition
containing silica for forming tires and treads under oath despite the knowledge of
different reaction mechanisms involving alkoxysilanes and hydroxysilanes and the
rapid condensation or self-condensation associated with hydroxysilanes as
evidenced by the 2001 and 2002 scientific literatures referred to by him in the Rule
132 Declaration. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 2; U.S Patent Application Publication
2009/0186961 Al published on July 23, 2009 relied upon by the Examiner as the
English translation of the prior art discussed supra. Specifically, Araujo Da Silva
(who is also Declarant), notwithstanding the rapid and/or self-reaction mechanisms
of hydroxysilanes relative to alkoxysilanes discussed in the Rule 132 Declaration,
9
Appeal 2015-000703
Application 12/742,030
stated earlier that the hydroxysilanes included by its formula (R1)t(Si)(E)4.t are also
suitable for a rubber composition containing silica particles that is used in the
manufacture of tires or tire treads. Final Act. 3; Ans. 2, 4. Thus, on this record, we
find Araujo Da Silva’s (Declarant’s) statements in the applied prior art to be far
more reliable and credible than his subsequent statements in the Rule 132
Declaration. Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“In giving
more weight to prior publications than to subsequent conclusory statements by
experts, the Board acted well within [its] discretion.”); Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d
1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Board has discretion to give more weight to one item
of evidence over another “unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so”).
Appellants also contend (App. Br. 7-8) that:
Even if it could be said that a prima facie case of obviousness
existed for compositions containing the silanes recited in Appellant’s
claims, it is rebutted by the evidence of unexpectedly different results
provided in Appellant’s specification at Tables 1 and 2. Examples C-
2 and C-3 of Table 1 use a covering agent that is a siloxane, like those
disclosed in Araujo Da Silva. Examples C-4 and C-5 use a silane
covering agent as recited in Appellant’s claims. Table 2 shows that
Examples C-4 and C-5 have significantly and unexpectedly
reduced hysteresis and rolling resistance, as indicated by tan(8)max
and AG* values that are significantly lower than those obtained for
Examples C-2 and C-3.
.. .Example C-5 of Appellant’s specification uses a silane covering
agent that contains eight carbon atoms in the R1 substituent. As
shown in Table 3 of Appellant’s specification, Example C-6 uses a
silane covering agent that is similar in structure to that of Example C-
5, but wherein R1 is a propyl group, i.e., has fewer than four carbon
atoms. Example C-7 uses a silane covering agent wherein R1 is
methyl. Table 4 shows that the tan(S)max and AG* values for
Examples C-6 and C-7 are significantly increased when compared to
those of Example C-5, indicating that rolling resistance is increased
for compositions just outside the scope of Appellant’s claims.
10
Appeal 2015-000703
Application 12/742,030
Appellants further note that “as explained in the Declaration at paragraph 14, while
the weight fractions are indeed different between the inventive and comparative
examples, this is because the mole fractions are approximately the same. As a
result, the experiments are a proper side-by-side comparison...” App. Br. 9.
The burden of showing unexpected results rests on Appellants who assert
them by establishing that the difference between the claimed invention and the
closest prior art was an unexpected difference. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs.,
952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA
1972) (“the burden of showing unexpected results rests on he who asserts them”);
In re Heyna, 360 F.2d 222, 228 (CCPA 1966) (“It was incumbent upon appellants
to submit clear and convincing evidence to support their allegation of unexpected
property.”). That burden also requires Appellants to demonstrate that the showing
of unexpected results relied upon is reasonably commensurate in scope with the
degree of protection sought by the claims on appeal. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731,
743 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980). The
unexpected results must be established by factual evidence, and attorney
statements are insufficient to establish unexpected results. See In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470-71 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343
(Fed.Cir.1997).
Here, Appellants rely on C-4 and C-5 compositions in Tables 1 through 2 at
pages 31 and 32 of the Specification as representative of their invention. App. Br.
7-8; Reply Br. 5. While these compositions are shown to have particular
proportions of a specific diene elastomer (a specific SBR and BR blend), a
particular silica (a reinforcing inorganic filler), a specific coupling agent, a specific
hydroxysilane (octylmethyldihydroxysilane), carbon black, MES oil, a specific
11
Appeal 2015-000703
Application 12/742,030
vegetable oil, a specific plasticizing resin, DPG, a specific antiozone wax, zinc
oxide, a specific antioxidant, stearic acid, sulphur, and a specific accelerator,
claim 1 is not so limited. Compare Table 1, C-4 and C-5, with claim 1. Appellants
do not proffer sufficient evidence to show that the results obtained by employing
0.9 and 2.7 percent by weight of octylmethyldihydroxysilane (when R1 is 8 carbon
atoms, R2 is methyl, and n is 1 for the hydroxysilane formula R1(R2)nSi(OH)3_n
recited in claim 1) in a specific rubber composition is also applicable to the
multifarious rubber compositions containing, inter alia, no silica and/or different
amounts of octylmethyldihydroxysilane encompassed by claim If App. Br. 7-11
and 13-16; Reply Br. 5-6. Nor do Appellants proffer sufficient evidence to show
that the results obtained by employing 0.9 and 2.7 percent by weight of
octylmethyldihydroxysilane is also applicable to the hydroxysilanes having three
hydroxysilanes (n is 0) with different R1 and R2 encompassed by the hydroxysilane
formula R1(R2)nSi(OH)3.n recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7-11 and 13-16; Reply Br.
5-6. At page 8 of the Appeal Brief, Appellants’ reliance on C-6, and C-7
compositions in Tables 3 and 4 at pages 33 and 34 of the Specification to show the
criticality (unpredictability) of using four or more carbon atoms, rather than one or
three carbon atoms, as R1 of the hydroxysilane formula R1(R2)nSi(OH)3.n further
5 See, e.g., In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(“The Board
also correctly reasoned that the showing of unexpected results is not
commensurate in scope with the degree of protection sought by the claimed
subject matter because the elemental composition of CMSX®-486 is at or
near the midpoint of the claimed range. While Harris's evidence may show a
slight improvement over some alloys, the record does not show that the
improved performance would result if the weight-percentages were varied
within the claimed ranges. Even assuming that the results were unexpected,
Harris needed to show results covering the scope of the claimed range.”)
12
Appeal 2015-000703
Application 12/742,030
supports the Examiner’s finding that the limited showing relied upon is not
predictive of the multifarious rubber compositions and/or hydroxysilanes
encompassed by claim 1 on appeal. Thus, we find that the weight of evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding that the showing relied upon by Appellants is not
reasonably commensurate with the degree of protection sought by claim 1 on
appeal. See, e.g., In re Harris, 409 F.3d at 1344 (“Even assuming that the results
were unexpected, Harris needed to show results covering the scope of the claimed
range. Alternatively Harris needed to narrow the claims.”); In re Greenfield, 571
F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978) (“Establishing that one (or a small number of)
species gives unexpected results is inadequate proof, for ‘it is the view of this court
that objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with
the claims which the evidence is offered to support.’”) (quoting In re Tiffin, 448
F.2d 791, 792 (CCPA 1971)).
Accordingly, we find no reversible error in the Examiner’s determination
that a preponderance of the evidence leans heavily in favor of obviousness of the
subject matter recited in claims 1-16, 18, and 19 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
2. Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
As evidence of obviousness of the subject matter recited in claim 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner also relies upon the disclosure of Araujo Da
Silva. The Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute, that Araujo Da Silva
discloses a process involving kneading the diene elastomer with the reinforcing
inorganic filler and all or a portion of the coupling system at a
temperature.. .between 110° C and 190° C during the “a first phase, sometimes
referred to as the nonproductive phase,” and after cooling the resulting mixture
from the nonproductive phase to a temperature below 120° C, incorporating a
13
Appeal 2015-000703
Application 12/742,030
vulcanizing or a crosslinking system into and then mixing (kneading) it with such
mixture at low temperature, typically between 60° C and 100° C, during the
productive phase as required by claim 17. Compare Final Act. 4; Ans. 3^4, with
App. Br. 16-17; see also Araujo Da Silva Tflf 226-228.
Appellants rely the same arguments advanced in connection with claim 1 to
impart patentability to the subject matter recited in claim 17, which employs the
same hydroxysilanes and rubber composition recited in claim 1. App. Br. 16-17.
However, based on the reasons stated supra, we find no reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination that a preponderance of the evidence leans heavily in
favor of obviousness of the subject matter recited in claim 17 within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
ORDER
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-19
is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
14