Appeal No. 1998-2636
Application No. 08/534,961
and thus which seemingly would encompass the polyolefin-
stabilizing additives of Mathis. This combination would have
been motivated by the desire to render Turner’s polyolefins
more stable via the phosphorous-containing compounds taught by
Mathis to be well known for this purpose. Moreover, the above
discussed teachings would have provided the artisan with a
reasonable expectation that the combination in question would
successfully achieve the desired stability enhancement. In re
O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-904,
7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680-81 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In support of his nonobviousness position, the appellant
refers to the Mulhaupt reference and to the 37 CFR § 1.132
declaration of record by Staniek. In essence, it is the
appellant’s position that no basis exists for extrapolating
the polyolefin-stabilizer teachings of Mathis to polyolefins
of the type here claimed which are prepared by a Generation
II, III, IV, or V catalyst which has not been removed. The
appellant’s position is not well taken in a number of
respects.
We are mindful of the appellant’s point that the Mulhaupt
reference teaches that there are many potential interactions
between stabilizers and catalyst components of the type under
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007