Appeal No. 1996-3937
Application No. 08/319,702
compare example 1 of Giles wherein the stabilizers are added
to a polypropylene polymer. The examiner’s argument that the
combination of the above prior art compounds would have been
expected to produce a “cooperative effect” exceeding “any two
or three component stabilizer” combination (answer, page 3) is
factually supported by Van Asbroeck’s teaching that such
stabilizing systems typically contain additional stabilizing
compounds that “frequently increase synergistically the
efficiency (emphasis added)” of the phenolic antioxidant
component. See Van Asbroeck at column 1, lines 25-27. Also
see this reference at column 1, lines 27-37. Thus, in our
view, the combined use of appellants’ four stabilizing
components in a polymeric composition such as polypropylene is
fairly suggested by the applied prior art. The dispositive
issue raised by the appealed subject matter, however, is
whether one of ordinary skill in this art would have been led
to combine the four stabilizing components in the form of an
additive dust free blend of compacted particles as required by
appealed claim 1. For the reasons advanced in the brief and
below, we answer this question in the negative.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007