Appeal No. 95-0311
Application No. 07/976,846
perform in a similar manner with Murayama’s compound 170.
Certainly, appellant could have, and should have, tabulated
his results in the same manner as Murayama so that it could be
ascertained whether any unobvious results have been obtained.
Furthermore, appellant could have, and should have, compared a
representative claimed compound with the closest prior art
compounds illustrated in example 25 of Murayama.
Consequently, appellant has not sustained his burden of proof
to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness.
Adverting to the rejection of claims 2 , 3/2, 4/2, 5/2, 7, 5
9, 10/2 and 11/2, we cannot sustain this rejection because the
combined references (Murayama, Karrer, and Ikenaga) do not
show an acetylated hindered amine light stabilizer as defined
by formula II of claim 2. Although appellant acknowledges on
page 5, lines 6 to 8, of the specification that a hindered
amine light stabilizer, where R is C , is commercially
12
available, the examiner has not explained why it would have
been obvious to substitute this particular hindered amine
5We note that R in claim 2 is not defined. It is evident
from the specification, page 2, line 17, and the brief that
the definition of R is the same as that in claim 1. The
informality can be corrected, when the application is returned
to the examiner.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007