Appeal No. 1996-3937
Application No. 08/319,702
The examiner’s conclusion that the claimed subject matter
herein would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in this art is based on the combined disclosures in six prior
art references. Although appellants argue that the relied
upon references provide no support for combining the claimed
components of the blend of appellants’ appealed claim 1 “in a
single resin composition or in a single composition of any 2
kind" (brief, page 4), it is our view that a person of
ordinary skill in this art would have been led to utilize the
known “acid neutralizing stabilizers”, i.e., calcium stearate
(a metal salt of a fatty acid) and a hydrotalcite in
combination (as taught in Matumura at column 3, lines 42-51)
with the pentaerythritol phosphite/hydroxyphenylalkyleneyl
isocyanurate (a hindered phenolic isocyanurate) stabilizer
combination of Gilles invited by Gilles’ statement at column
6, lines 5-8 that “other ingredients known in the art as
thermal and/or oxidative stabilizers” may also be used in his
compositions. See Gilles at column 4, lines 57-63. Also
2Appellants cancelled originally presented composition
claim 6 during prosecution. See the amendment filed May 8,
1995.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007