Appeal No. 95-4939
Application No. 08/096,345
handling and processing difficulties associated with
such thick materials.
See page 3, lines 9-12. Accordingly, based on this disclosure
of the primary reference, there would have been no motivation
for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the silica
of McGee in the composition of Hill. Secondly, McGee does not
teach the claimed "silica having a methanol wettability of
from 3 to 70 percent." McGee is silent regarding the methanol
wettability of the silica utilized and, as is disclosed in the
present specification, not all hydrophobic silica have the
claimed methanol wettability but, rather, only those which are
rendered moderately hydrophobic. Furthermore, although
appellants' specification data provides evidence that
compositions within the scope of the appealed claims are
superior antifoaming agents relative to compositions made in
accordance with the disclosures of Hill and McGee, the
examiner offers the conclusion that the specification examples
"are insufficient to overcome the prima facie case of
obviousness because no criticality has been demonstrated for
the specifically claimed silica" (page 5 of Answer), without
providing a substantive analysis of the examples that explains
why they are insufficient to establish criticality.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007