Appeal No. 2000-0459
Application 08/838,584
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring-in-part and
dissenting-in-part.
I concur with the majority’s reversal of the examiner’s
§ 112, second paragraph rejection of claim 24. Moreover, I
concur with the majority’s determination that the examiner has
made out a prima facie case of obviousness pursuant to the
provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to all of the appealed
claims. However, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s
decision to reverse the examiner’s § 103 rejection based on the
examiner’s additional reliance on the teachings of Seltzer and
Bohshar in combination with Caselli and to the extent based on
the evidence in rebuttal furnished by appellants in their
specification.
As the majority has noted, Caselli alone suggests the
claimed stabilizer composition. Caselli discloses that other
stabilizers and additive can be used in their composition,
including synthetic hydrotalcites and metal stearates, with
calcium and sodium stearates being listed as exemplary stearates.
See page 8, lines 44-53 of Caselli.
In addition, Bohshar lists a variety of additional co-
stabilizers for a stabilizer composition similar to that of
Caselli, including zinc stearate, magnesium stearate, calcium
oxide, magnesium oxide and zinc oxide, which are all within the
scope of appellants’ component b. Also, Seltzer (column 16,
lines 54-60) discloses that zinc stearate may be employed as an
additive to a polyolefin stabilizer composition. Thus, both
Seltzer and Bohshar bolster the prima facie case of obviousness
supplied by Caselli in that they each describe other stabilizers
that may be employed in combination with the stabilizers of the
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007