Appeal No. 95-0311
Application No. 07/976,846
(Paper No. 15) and the examiner's arguments in the
Supplemental Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 16), we find that we
cannot sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3/2, 4/2, 5/2, 7, 9,
10/2 and 11/2, but we will sustain the rejection of claims 1,
3/1, 4/1, 5/1, 6, 8, 10/1 and 11/1 as being anticipated by or,
in the alternative, as being obvious in view of Murayama. We
add the following for emphasis.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3/1, 4/1, 5/1,
6, 8, 10/1 and 11/1 on the ground of anticipation, Murayama
describes within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) the
combination of polyacetals with an effective stabilizing
amount of a piperidine derivative having formula (I). See
column 2, line 13, to column 2, line 41. A preferred
piperidine derivative is 170, "1,3,8-triaza-3-octyl-8-acetyl-
7,7,9,9,-tetramethyl-spiro[4,5]decane-2,4-dione." See column
16, lines 21-22.
With respect to the alternative rejection of claims 1,
3/1, 4/1, 5/1, 6, 8, 10/1 and 11/1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we
find no error in the examiner's determination that the claims
would have been prima facie obvious over Murayama. Murayama,
column 1, lines 15 to 25; column 2, lines 21 to 41; and column
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007