Appeal No. 2000-0459
Application 08/838,584
Appellants further argue that examples 8 and 9 of Caselli
are the only examples in which compounds corresponding to
components a) and c) of their claims are employed together.
Appellants state that example 3 employs compounds corresponding
to their claimed components a) and b), and that example 6 employs
compounds corresponding to component a) and a synthetic
hydrotalcite, and states that neither of these examples employs
appellants’ component c). (brief, page 9).
On page 6 of the answer, the examiner states that example 3
of Caselli teaches SANDOSTAB P-EPQ (component a) of claim 29),
and sodium stearate (component b) of claim 29). The examiner
also states that examples 8 and 9 add a stabilizer (component c)
of claim 29).
We find that example 9 of Caselli employs all three
compounds together: 1) SANDOSTAB P-EPQ, 2) calcium stearate, and
3) the stabilizer of formula XI (which is the HALS compound
depicted at the bottom of column 6 of Caselli, which corresponds
to appellants’ component c)).
Furthermore, Caselli’s disclosure at column 8, beginning at
line 44, teaches that calcium and sodium stearates are art
recognized equivalents. Hence, to substitute the calcium
stearate of example 9 with the art recognized equivalent of
sodium stearate, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art.
In summary, we find that Caselli provides sufficient
guidance to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine component
b) sodium stearate, in view of the art recognized equivalence of
sodium stearate and calcium stearate, with appellants’ components
a) and c).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007