Appeal No. 2001-2048
Application 09/357,257
pentaerythritol diphosphite (answer, pages 7-8). This argument
is not well taken because the examiner has not established that
the information in the appellants’ comparative examples is prior
art.
The record, therefore, indicates that the motivation relied
upon by the examiner for using a bis(2,4-dicumylphenyl)-
pentaerythritol diphosphite/triisopropanolamine blend to make the
polyolefin compositions of the applied prior art comes from the
appellants’ disclosure of their invention in the specification
rather than coming from the applied prior art. Consequently, the
record indicates that the examiner used impermissible hindsight
when rejecting the claims. See W.L. Gore & Associates v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984); In re Rothermel,
276 F.2d 393, 396, 125 USPQ 328, 331 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly,
we reverse the examiner’s rejection.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007