Appeal No. 2005-0846
Application No. 09/981,339
the reference application and the application under review.
Accordingly, Conroy is a valid prior art reference for purposes
of this appeal.
In his reply brief, appellant attempts to distinguish his
claims from Conroy by arguing that the stabilizer blend of Conroy
is limited to protecting only clear halogen-containing polymer
compositions. This argument is also of little merit since the
instant claims read on stabilizer compositions used to protect
clear halogen-containing polymer compositions. Also, the instant
claims do not preclude the addition of other compounds, such as
the phenyl salicylate of Conroy.
Moreover, in our opinion, the Conroy disclosure is not as
limited as appellant makes it out to be. For instance, while
Conroy (col. 4, ll. 27-30) indicates that no benefits in terms of
ultraviolet light stability and weatherability have been observed
as to opaque resin formulations, this says nothing with regard to
the benefits expected in terms of heat stability. Also, although
Conroy (col. 20, ll. 28-30) states that the disclosed invention
is “generally” limited to clear formulations, the term
“generally” is ordinarily not interpreted as having an exclusive
connotation. Furthermore, at least some of the articles of
manufacture contemplated as being within the ambit of the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007