Appeal No. 1999-2153
Application No. 08/958,848
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Stansfield et al. (Stansfield) 3,778,287 Dec. 11, 1973
Iruvanti et al. (Iruvanti) 5,098,609 Mar. 24, 1992
Anderson, Jr. et al. (Anderson) 5,213,704 May 25, 1993
All of the claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iruvanti in combination with
Stansfield and further in view of Anderson.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants
and by the examiner concerning the above noted rejection.
OPINION
This rejection cannot be sustained for the reasons expressed
below.
On page 4 of the answer, the examiner expresses his
obviousness position as follows:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of invention to utilize a polyester of self-
condensed 12 HSA having the instant an [sic] acid No. of
Stansfield in Iruvanti since Iruvanti teaches employing
polyesters of Stansfield and a self-condensed 12 hydroxy
stearic acid (12 HSA) and since choosing an acid No. from
the disclosed range is considered a prima facie [sic], and
Anderson, Jr. teaches mineral oils of Iruvanti as dielectric
liquid carriers.
As correctly argued by the appellants, however, the applied
references including Iruvanti and Stansfield contain no teaching
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007