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