Appeal No. 95-0319
Application 07/916,180
on the disclosures of Washecheck and Nakamura. We have carefully considered appellant’s remarks
in his request. However, we decline to modify our decision in any respect.
In regard to the issues concerning the claimed triglyceride ester component of appellant’s
composition and method, we made the following statement at page 3 of our decision:
However, the examiner’s contention (answer, page 15)
that such triglyceride esters fall within the scope of
Washecheck’s high molecular weight ester lubricants
has not been challenged (emphasis added).
Accordingly, appellant’s belated arguments in his request concerning this issue are untimely and have
not been considered. See 37 CFR § 1.192(a).
Appellant’s argument that Nakamura’s teaching of using a granular lead stabilizer “negates the
homogeneity” of appealed claims 1 and 13 misconstrues the basis of the rejection, since Nakamura is
relied upon for the teaching that appellant’s claimed triglyceride component is a known and
conventional lubricant for polyvinylchloride resins which is contemplated by Washecheck as an “other
additive” lubricant which is useful in Washecheck’s composition. See Washecheck at column 4, lines
59-68.
Appellant’s argument (request, page 1, last paragraph) that implies that the addition of a
triglyceride ester oil lubricant would not form a homogeneous mixture in Washecheck’s homogeneous
composition ignores the fact that the analogous calcium salts (which appellant refers to as soaps) fuse
and coalesce with paraffin wax into a “homogeneous taffy-like material” in Washecheck’s process.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007