Appeal No. 2001-2048
Application 09/357,257
F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re
O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 902, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
Stevenson, which is the only applied reference which
discloses bis(2,4-dicumylphenyl)pentaerythritol diphosphite, does
not disclose use of this diphosphite in combination with
triisopropanolamine. The examiner has not provided any evidence
of a known function of the triisopropanolamine in the
commercially available bis(2,4-dicumylphenyl)pentaerythritol
diphosphite/triisopropanolamine blend which would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to use the blend instead of Stevenson’s
diphosphite when making the polyolefin compositions of the
applied prior art. Nor has the examiner provided any other
reason why the applied prior art would have led one of ordinary
skill in the art to select the blend rather than the diphosphite
to make the polyolefin compositions of the applied prior art.
The examiner argues that the appellants, as representative
of those of ordinary skill in the art, concede by their
comparative examples that there had to have been recognition in
the art by the manufacturer of Doverphos® S-9228T and those who
previously used it, that triisopropanolamine would increase the
hydrolytic stability of Stevenson’s bis(2,4-dicumylphenyl)-
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007