Appeal 2007-2049
Application 10/475,223
II. DISCUSSION
A. Issue
In reviewing the rejections, we consider the dispositive issues arising
from the contentions in the Substitute Brief filed October 19, 2006 and the
Answer filed July 14, 2006.
Appellants characterize their invention as “directed to several specific
combinations of known light stabilizing compounds that have now been
found to be especially effective in the stabilization to light of
polychloroprene latexes.” (Br. 5). Appellants contend that the references
applied by the Examiner do not teach or suggest any of the specific
combinations of their claims 4-10 and 15 and that they have shown, in Table
1 of the Specification, that various combinations of known light stabilizers
in polychloroprene latex “show superior light stabilizing effects in
comparison to other combinations of known light stabilizers.” (Br. 6-7 and
8).
The Examiner contends that the cited references show that “a
multitude of polymers, among them polychloroprene, have been stabilized in
the past with a multitude of stabilizers, antioxidants and UV absorbers, and
these additives and their respective blends with each other are well known in
the art, and blending different additives in different amounts is clearly a
method of optimizing the effects of familiar materials.” (Answer 4-5). The
Examiner also contends that “Appellants are not showing any unexpected
results in their specification.” (Answer 5).
The main issue arising from the contentions of Appellants and the
Examiner is: Have Appellants overcome the rejection by showing
insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013