Appeal 2007-1565
Application 10/682,951
and choose all of the requisite components necessary to arrive
at the claimed composition while still remaining zinc-free.
(Br. 12.)
The Examiner has the better argument. Drewes already has been cited
for its teaching of a composition having three of the positively recited
components. Each of Sugawara and Yuichi teach compositions with two of
these components – a compound of general formula I and an amino alcohol
– but which do not contain zinc. These references thus reinforce what the
Examiner already concluded about Drewes: that zinc stearate is an optional,
non-essential ingredient. As found by the Examiner, Drewes also teaches
the benefit of perchlorate (e.g., Drewes, Abstract; col. 25, l. 23; col. 26, line
22) for PVC stabilization, providing a reason to have added it to the
compositions of Sugawara and Yuichi. Obviousness does not require
“precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter” of the claimed
invention. KSR, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. In view of our affirmance of the
rejection of claims 1-5 over Drewes alone, we agree with the Examiner that
there would have been reason for the person of skill in the art to have further
combined Sugawara or Yuichi with Drewes to have arrived at the claimed
invention. We affirm the rejection of claims 1-5 as obvious over Sugawara
or Yuichi in view of Drewes.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013