Appeal No. 2000-1448 6
Application No. 08/709,975
Spivack.
Claims 17, 18, 29, 30 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over GB ‘362.
Claims 17, 18, 29, 30 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mülhaupt, Spivack, and GB ‘362 in view of EP ‘717 and Akashi.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner, and agree with the appellants that the rejections of claims 17, 18, 29, 30
and 35 on the grounds of obviousness are not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse
these rejections.
As an initial matter, appellants state that, “[c]laims 17-18, 29-30 and 35 are to be
considered together.” See Brief, page 4. Accordingly, we select claim 35, the sole
independent process claim as representative of the claimed subject matter and limit our
consideration thereto. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1999).
The Rejections under Section 103
It is appellants’ position that they, “have found a particular selection of stabilizers for
polyolefins which are never exemplified per se out of the broad and generic descriptions
given in any of the cited prior art references for stabilizing thick-walled polyolefins and
which in turn prove to be particularly resistant to loss from the polyolefin when said
stabilized polyolefin is in permanent contact with water.” See Brief, page 8. We agree.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007