Appeal No. 1998-1176
Application No. 08/553,072
(Brief, page 8). Appellant also argues that the specific
benzotriazole of claim 9 is not taught or suggested by Kintopf
(id.). Finally, appellant argues that Kintopf does not
disclose or suggest the use of a water immiscible solvent as
recited in claim 22 on appeal.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. The examiner
concludes that the amounts of each component would have been
well within the ordinary skill in the art since Kintopf
teaches that the amount of solvent should completely dissolve
the particular benzotriazole used (see Kintopf, col. 4, ll.
28-39; col. 5, l. 64-col. 6, l. 1; Answer, pages 9-10).
Appellant has not specifically rebutted the examiner’s finding
regarding the teaching of Kintopf. Furthermore, it is noted
that the law is replete with cases in which the difference
between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range
within the claims and it has been consistently held that in
such situations that appellant must show that the particular
range is critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,
16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The specific
benzotriazole of claim 9 on appeal is disclosed by Kintopf in
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007