Appeal No. 2001-2048
Application 09/357,257
would not separate out the triisopropanolamine before using the
diphosphite (answer, page 7). Because bis(2,4-dicumylphenyl)-
pentaerythritol diphosphite has not been disclosed as having any
utility other than stabilizing polymers, the examiner argues, it
is plausible to presume that the triisopropanolamine is innocuous
with respect to both bis(2,4-dicumylphenyl)pentaerythritol
diphosphite and polymers (answer, page 6). The examiner argues
that any benefit of the triisopropanolamine observed by the
appellants is merely an inherent characteristic of the
commercially available bis(2,4-dicumylphenyl)pentaerythritol
diphosphite/triisopropanolamine blend (answer, pages 6-7).
The examiner’s arguments are directed toward whether one of
ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation
of success in using the commercially available bis(2,4-
dicumylphenyl)pentaerythritol diphosphite/triisopropanolamine
blend in the polyolefin compositions of the applied prior art.
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, however, the
examiner also must explain how the applied prior art would have
provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a motivation to
use this blend as proposed by the examiner. See In re Vaeck, 947
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007