Waterproof at the deck or traffic level Many more examples available.

•

•

•

'

Waterproof at the deck and traffic level systems. However, one need look no further than Table A on page 6 of the declaration to see that lllger and AI-Tabaqchall differ in their composition and would not be expected to perform in the same manner.

Application/Control Number: 90/013,511 Art Unit: 3993 Page 32 The use of "thermal conductivity" to assert unexpected results is confusing and misleading.

The declaration has not shown that the impregnation of the core portions of Baerveldt '708 with a fire retardant material as taught by lllger would have been unobvious to those of ordinary skill in the art, or would have produced unexpected results.

To the contrary, the modification of Baerveldt '708 would have been obvious and the results would have been predictable in light of the teachings of lllger when taken as a whole.

Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2015 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.

lllger provides many additional teachings which have not been addressed by PO: • The impregnation of polyurethane foams with a dispersion consisting substantially of an aluminum hydroxide, a polyurethane latex, and mixing stabilizers results in foams having excellent and unexpected flame resistant properties. (column 2, lines 9-19) • The impregnated foam can contain anywhere from 10-95% by weight of aluminum hydroxide. (column 2, lines 24-26) • The formulation for producing thefoams need not be altered for the flame proofing and, in particular, there is no impairment of the mechanical properties of the foam by the addition of flame retardingagents. (column 3, lines 38-41) • The foams produced by the process according to the invention are suitable for all fields of application in which flame retardantflexible or semi-rigid foams have previously been used, such as... structural elements. (paragraph bridging columns 6 and 7) Thus, lllger teaches that a fire retardantmaterial may be impregnated into a foam material, and aluminum hydroxide in particular provides the desired fire resistance without impairing the mechanicalproperties of the foam. With respect to the arguments regarding an alleged lack of motivation and alleged hindsight (pages 34-35, 39), the rejection does not rely onthe UL 2079 standards for a teaching of how to create a product which would pass the test, as asserted by PO. However, the UL standards are well-known to those ofskill in particular arts, in this case the building art, and are often the standard used in building codes. If a product is intended for use in a manner governed by abuilding code, such as a seal assembly for an expansion joint, it stands to reason that one of ordinary skill in the art would design it to meet or exceed the applicablebuilding codes so that it could actually be used in the intended structure. This is evident from Joffre (U.S. Patent 5,744,199 to Joffre et al.). Joffre discloses a sealassembly for an opening of a building, and the sealing elements are tested in accordance with the applicable standards based on the desired or required properties.