Appeal 2007-0107
Application 10/013,885
claims, with the exception of claim 28. We shall consider claim 28
separately to the extent the latter claim has been separately argued in the
Brief.
We acknowledge Appellants’ reference to the “Board’s Decision on
3/25/05” (Br. 2). A copy of the prior Board decision is furnished in the
Related Proceedings Appendix to the Brief. In that Decision, the panel
affirmed, inter alia, an obviousness rejection of the then appealed claims
based on the same prior art evidence that is before us here in this appeal.
Appellants state that the claims have been narrowed subsequent to the last
appeal, after filing a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). (Br. 2-3).
However, we find no persuasive reason presented in Appellants’ Brief that
warrants a different outcome here because of the alleged narrower appealed
claims before us in this appeal or for any other reason proffered in the Brief.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims for the
reasons set forth in the Answer. We add the following for emphasis.
The Examiner has found that each of Hardy and Susi discloses
substituted 2-OH phenyl diaryl s-triazine compounds of a formula, which
embraces substituted triazine compounds required as part of Appellants’
representative claim 1 preparation (Answer 3 and 4). Both Hardy and Susi
disclose that such compounds are useful as UV absorption or protection
agents, particularly with respect to polymers (Hardy; col. 1, l. 11- col. 2, l. 9;
Susi; col. 4, ll. 10-37 and col. 11, ll. 25-32). The Examiner turns to
Grossmann, Biland and Duennnenberg I and II to evidence that substituted
aryl triazine compounds that are useful in plastics as UV absorbents are also
useful as a UV absorber in a wide variety of organic–containing
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013