Appeal No. 2005-0846
Application No. 09/981,339
carboxylate such as zinc stearate or zinc laurate), and a Lewis
acid (e.g., zinc chloride). The metal-based stabilizer may be
present in amounts from about .01 to about 10% by weight of the
resin. The Lewis acid may be present in amounts from about .005
to .5% by weight of the resin. Conroy: col. 18, ll. 4-28; col.
19, l. 60-col. 20, l. 5. Thus, the Conroy disclosure embraces
appellant’s claimed subject matter.
We agree with the examiner that the appealed claims are
anticipated by the Conroy disclosure and, in addition, it is
axiomatic that anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.
Appellant’s primary argument in rebuttal was that Conroy
does not constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because
one of the three named inventors listed on the Conroy reference
is also listed as sole inventor with regard to the instant
application. According to appellant, this means that the Conroy
patent was not granted on an application “by another” as required
by 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
This argument is unpersuasive since, as correctly pointed
out by the examiner, it is well established that a different
inventive entity constitutes “another” for purposes of the
statute even if some, but not all, of the inventors are common to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007