Appeal No. 2006-2666
Application No. 10/140,531
protect.” Seltzer also discloses that suitable stabilizers include N,N-
diethylhydroxylamine (Seltzer, col. 12, l. 66) for stablizing polymers comprising
polyurethanes and polyesters. (Seltzer, col. 8, ll, 12-17 and, 30-47). Rodgers
discloses polyester and polyurethane compositions suitable for coating pulp and
paper. (Rodgers, col. 8, ll. 29-47). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have reasonably expected that the light stabilizer of Seltzer would have been
an effective additive to the paper and pulp coating composition of Rodgers for the
light stabilizing properties.
Appellants argue that picking and choosing is required to arrive at the
claimed invention because Seltzer only very generically mentions the possible
co-use of hydroxylamine stabilizers among a long list of other potential stabilizers
and Seltzer also only generically mentions polyesters and polyurethanes among a
whole host of polymer substrates (Br. 11).
This argument is not persuasive because a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have reasonably expected that the invention disclosed by Seltzer would have
been suitable for the embodiments disclosed therein. Specifically, Seltzer discloses
that the stabilizer is suitable for use with polyesters and polyurethanes. The
Appellants have not directed us to evidence that the described hydroxylamine
stabilizers would not perform as disclosed by Seltzer.
We note that Appellants have not relied upon evidence of unexpected results
to rebut the Examiner’s obviousness determination.
CONCLUSION
Based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, having
evaluated the prima facie case of obviousness in view of Appellants’ arguments
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013