Appeal No. 95-3647
Application No. 08/169,782
would have selected emulsifiers that achieve this end. We note
that the appealed claims fail to recite any particular class of
emulsifier. Regarding specification Examples 1, 34 and 35 cited
by appellants, we agree with the examiner that the examples are
not probative of nonobviousness inasmuch as they are not
representative of the applied prior art, i.e., Fong and/or
Anderson. In re Johnson, 747 F.2d 1456, 1461, 223 USPQ 1260,
1263-64 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As for separately argued claim 3, which requires the
presence of a stabilizer which stabilizes the polymer against
degradation due to the presence of hydroxylamine, we agree with
the examiner that Von Euler-Chelpin evidences the obviousness of
utilizing appellants' thiosulfates as stabilizers for acrylamide
polymers. While appellants contend that Von Euler-Chelpin does
not disclose the inclusion of a stabilizer against degradation
due to the presence of hydroxylamine, Von Euler-Chelpin discloses
the use of appellants' stabilizers to stabilize acrylamide
polymers against thermal and oxidative degradation. Accordingly,
we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to employ stabilizers of Von Euler-Chelpin to stabilize
appellants' acrylamide polymers against thermal and oxidative
degradation. It is not required for a finding of obviousness
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007