Appeal No. 1996-3937
Application No. 08/319,702
admittedly known dusting type additives for polymers
(specification at page 1 and 2)” to reduce “dustiness”
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in this
art. We observe, however, that the prior art admissions in 3
appellants’ specification referred to by the examiner do not
specifically identify appellants’ claimed components, i.e.,
pentaerythritol phosphite compounds, hindered phenolic
isocyanurate compounds, or hydrotalcites, as “known dusting
type additives”. In the absence of prior art knowledge of a
potential dusting problem with appellants’ composition, no
reason exists to pelletize the composition to produce a “dust
free blend of compacted particles” as claimed herein. In
short, we agree with appellants that the relied upon
references (inclusive of the prior art admissions) do not
provide adequate motivation or suggestion for combining the
claimed components in a compacted
3With respect to prior art stabilizer blends of soft
particles which are associated with substantial amounts of
dust, appellants’ admissions in the specification only
generally refer to “[C]ertain blends of phosphites, hindered
phenolics and neutralizers” without identification of the
specific compounds in question. See the specification at page
1, lines 23-26.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007