Appeal No. 1999-0381 Application No. 07/776,014 6) and “wherein the melting point of the formula could be precisely controlled by one of the components in the composition” (specification, page 7). Such “[a] release agent composition … could be adjusted to cover a wide range of viscosities, lubricities and melting points and [be] adaptable to fit a number of different types of molding equipment [sic]” (specification, page 6). Appellant seeks to meet these requirements by providing “a three-component water soluble mold release composition … comprising one or more water soluble copolymers of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, a highly crystalline polyoxyalkylene compound which melts at slightly above ambient temperature and one or more antioxidant additives” (specification, page 7). PROCEDURAL HISTORY We find it helpful to outline the procedural history of this application. 1. On September 21, 1995, in Appeal No. 1993-2624 a merits panel entered a new ground of rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the Board relied on the Handbook and Kirk-Othmer (Paper No.20). 2. On January 24, 1996, appellant responded by filing a declaration from Edward C.Y. Nieh (Paper No. 21). This is appellant’s own declaration and it sought to rebut the obviousness rejection on the basis that the claimed compositions possessed unexpected properties. 3. On March 13, 1996, the examiner entered a final rejection maintaining the rejection entered by the merits panel (Paper No. 22). 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007