Appeal 2007-1565
Application 10/682,951
Based on this evidence, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the
disclosure of Drewes, when considered in its entirety, would have
reasonably suggested to a person of skill in the art stabilizer compositions
without zinc (Answer 8), including composition 33 without zinc stearate.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner has set forth sufficient evidence
to establish prima facie obviousness of claim 1.
Appellants contend that Drewes teaches “zinc-containing compounds
are preferred for use in its composition. As such, one of skill in the art,
when considering . . . [Drewes] as a whole would clearly be motivated to use
zinc-containing compounds in the compositions taught therein.” (Br. 7.)
They also argue that Drewes
discloses a general composition and then provides an
exhaustive list of thousands of possible compounds that could
be optional ingredients. To arrive at the presently claimed
invention, the Examiner must pick and choose from the
exhaustive list of optional ingredients at least one amino
alcohol and at least one compound having a structural element
according to the general formula I, all the while specifically
ensuring the composition is free of zinc.
(Br. 9.)
Appellants’ arguments fail to take into account that Drewes describes
a composition which contains all three components required by the stabilizer
composition of claim 1. Picking and choosing is not required to arrive at
this composition because it is expressly disclosed by Drewes. The only
issue is whether it would have been obvious to have omitted the non-
essential and optional ingredient, zinc stearate. We do not find support for
Appellants’ contention that the skilled worker would have been motivated to
have selected zinc containing compounds. To the contrary, compositions
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013