Ex parte NIEH - Page 3




              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).                                                                   


                                                             3                                                              



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007