Appeal No. 2007-0301
Application No. 10/277,435
“hindered amine light stabilizer” that is reasonable and consistent with the
specification is appellant’s interpretation, i.e., the phrase as used in the
claims should be limited to hindered amine light stabilizers that are
derivatives of 2, 2, 6, 6-tetramethyl piperidine.3
As can be seen from the above excerpt, the specification teaches a
specific example of a preferred HALS—(1,2,2,6,6-pentamethyl-4-
piperidinyl) sebacate mixture. The specification also teaches that HALS are
“similar in chemistry,” thus supporting the interpretation that the HALS are
derivatives of 2, 2, 6, 6-tetramethyl piperidine.
Page 8 of the specification shows how Tinuven 765 compares to other
well known stabilizers, such as Naugard 445, which is 4,4’-bis(α,α-
dimethylbenzyl)diphenylamine. The specification teaches that the HALS
material (Tinuvan 765), which is a 2, 2, 6, 6-tetramethyl piperadine
derivative, provided the best stabilization. Thus, this example demonstrates
that the specification intended to exclude other well known stabilizers such
as Naugard 445 and octylated diphenylamine as taught by Furuta, from the
phrase “hindered amine light stabilizers.”
3 Although we do not rely upon the Reply Brief in reaching our decision, as
it was not entered by the examiner, we acknowledge Exhibit 1 as consistent
with this interpretation. The first paragraph of that exhibit states that “[t]he
second main category of light stabilisers consists of what are known as
hindered amine light stabilizers . . . . They are derivatives of 2,2,6,6-
tetramethyl piperidine and are extremely efficient stabilizers against light-
induced degradation of most polymers.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013