Appeal 2006-2350
Application 10/444,104
same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for
the very same purpose.” Id. The idea of combining the two anti-
solidification agents, sodium alginate and calcium sulfate, flows logically
from their having been individually taught in Uchino 978 as useful anti-
solidification agents. Further, Uchino 978 states that “[t]he polishing
material of the present invention may contain the above described anti-
solidification agents and dispersants in any combination.” (Uchino 978 ¶
28). The particular combinations of the additives is, therefore, not shown to
be critical. Table 9 of Uchino 978 lists mixtures of anti-solidification agents
crystalline cellulose and sodium carboxymethylcellulose used in
compositions of the third embodiment. Mixtures were contemplated. The
evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion of prima facie obviousness.
Appellants argue that the rationale of In re Kerkhoven does not apply
in the current case (Br. 6-7). According to Appellants, the data in their
Specification contradicts the Examiner’s rationale (Br. 6-7). We are not
persuaded that there is such a contradiction. According to Appellants, their
Example 4 shows that slurries containing polyacrylate, sodium alginate, and
CaO (slurries M and N) are redispersible after 24 hours whereas slurries
containing only polyacrylate and sodium alginate are not (slurry L) (Br. 6).
This shows, according to Appellants, that when one of the “anti-
solidification” agents listed in paragraph 13 of Uchino 978 is used (sodium
alginate), redispersibility cannot be obtained (Br. 6). Appellants argue that
this is contrary to the general teachings of Uchino 978 and demonstrates
why Appellants’ combination of sodium alginate and a calcium compound
would have been unobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (Br. 6).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013