Appeal No. 2000-0459
Application 08/838,584
Therefore, we determine the examiner has set forth a prima
facie case of obviousness.
II. Rebuttal Evidence
a. The Specification Data
Beginning on page 10 of the brief, appellants discuss
Example 1, as well as other examples, found in their
specification. Example 1 is described, beginning on page 26 of
appellants’ specification. Upon our review of Example 1, we
make the following findings.
The table at the top of page 27 of appellants’ specification
compares formulations A, B, C, and D. The components of each
formulation are outlined as follows.
Formulation A comprises IRG-168, calcium stearate, and HALS for
components A, B, and C, respectively.
Formulation B comprises SANDOSTAB P-EPQ, calcium stearate, and
HALS, for components A, B, and C, respectively.
Formulation C comprises I-168, sodium stearate, and HALS, for
components A, B, and C, respectively.
Formulation D comprises a SANDOSTAB P-EPQ, sodium stearate, and a
HALS, for components A, B, and C, respectively.2
Appellants state that a comparison of formulation B (which
utilizes calcium stearate for component b)) with formulation D
(which replaces the calcium stearate with sodium stearate for
component b)) shows that formulation D is superior to formulation
B. (brief, page 11).
On page 7 of the answer, the examiner is unconvinced by the
data as presented above. The examiner argues that the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007