Appeal 2007-3191
Application 10/482,217
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Liao or
Murakami in view of Gallagher.
ISSUE
Appellant contends that the Examiner has not established a prima
facie showing of obviousness because the Examiner has not explained why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the components of the
claimed composition from among the numerous components listed in the
applied prior art. Appellant argues, in particular, that one of ordinary skill in
the art would not have been motivated to select the particular phosphorus
containing stabilizers of the invention from among those listed in Liao (Br.
5).
The Examiner contends that the applied prior art specifically identifies
the components of Appellant’s claimed composition as being suitable for use
in a molding composition. The Examiner further contends that the applied
prior art describes a method of selection of an appropriate stabilizer
composition which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to select
the claimed potassium dihydrogen phosphate compound.
Based on the contentions of the Examiner and the Appellant, the issue
before us is: Has the Examiner provided sufficient facts and reasons to
establish a prima facie showing of obviousness within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103? And, if so, has Appellant provided sufficient evidence to
overcome the Examiner’s prima facie showing of obviousness?
For the reasons discussed below, we find that the preponderance of
the evidence weighs in favor of a finding of obviousness as to appealed
claims 1-10.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013