Appeal No. 2000-0459
Application 08/838,584
polyolefin composition. The examiner has not established why the
skilled artisan would have selected from this laundry list, the
combination of components set forth in claim 29, especially when
Seltzer’s use of stearates is not required (column 16, lines 54-
60). More importantly, the examiner has not explained why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have selected the disclosed
stearates in conjunction with the other components recited in
claim 29. Absent appellants’ disclosure, we are unable to find
the required reason, suggestion or motivation that would lead the
skilled artisan to select appellants’ combination of components
from Seltzer or Bohshar, or to modify Caselli in view of Seltzer
or Bohshar.
Therefore, we determine the examiner has not made out a
prima facie case with respect to the teachings of Seltzer and
Bohshar.
We only find a prima face case to the extent the examiner
relies upon Caselli, for the reasons set forth below.
Appellants admit that the SANDOSTAB P-EPQ stabilizer of
Caselli is within the definition of component a) recited in claim
29. (brief, page 8). Appellants also admit that the HALS
compound disclosed in Caselli corresponds to their claimed
component c). (brief, page 8). With respect to appellants’
claimed component b), appellants argue that the sodium stearate
disclosed in Caselli is merely optional and is “added before or
after rather than as part of the stabilizer composition” of
Caselli, and appellants refer to column 8, lines 44-53 of
Caselli. (brief, page 9). Appellants also argue that Caselli
teaches that calcium stearate, which is outside the definition of
their component b), may be used in place of sodium stearate.
(brief, page 9).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007