Ex parte COOKE - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1998-1176                                                        
          Application No. 08/553,072                                                  


               19. A UV light absorber composition for improving the                  
          lightfastness of dyed synthetic textiles, consisting                        
          essentially of:                                                             
               (a) 5-25% by weight of a substituted benzotriazole UV                  
          light absorbing agent; and                                                  
               (b) 75-95% by weight of a miscible organic solvent                     
          suitable for dissolving said benzotriazole, wherein said                    
          benzotriazole is applied to the textiles in a concentration                 
          sufficient to result in an add-on in the range of between 0.4-              
          4.0% by weight of the textiles when dry and optionally a                    
          surfactant, an additional light stabilizer, antioxidant and a               
          water immiscible solvent.                                                   
               The examiner has relied upon the following references in               
          support of the rejections:                                                  
          Kintopf et al. (Kintopf)         4,230,867          Oct. 28,                
          1980                                                                        
          DesLauriers et al. (DesLauriers) 5,268,450          Dec. 7,                 
          1993                                                                        
               All of the claims on appeal stand rejected under 35                    
          U.S.C.                                                                      
          § 112, ¶1, as being based on a specification which contains                 
          new matter (Answer, page 4).  Claims 9, 19 and 22 stand                     
          rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kintopf                 
          (Answer, page 5).  Claims 10 and 19 stand rejected under 35                 
          U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Deslauriers (Answer, page                 
          6).  We affirm the rejections based on prior art essentially                
          for the reasons in the Answer but reverse the rejection under               
                                          4                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007