Appeal 2007-3990
Application 10/194,943
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive. The present record
does not support Appellants’ contention that the claimed invention is not
obvious because Valligny teaches away from the use of a blend of ethylene
bis-stearamide and calcium. Valligny teaches a thermoplastic olefin blend
that can comprise an internal mould release agent (a lubricant package)
comprising a blend of ethylene bis-stearamide and calcium stearate.
Specifically Valligny states “[p]referably, the internal mould-release agent
may be chosen from the group formed by the alkaline-earth metal stearates,
of which calcium stearate is the most used, and the amides of stearic acid
(C17H35-CONH2), such as ethylene-bis-stearamide (EBS), these substances
being employed by themselves or as a blend” (Valligny, col. 7, ll. 13-17).
The Examiner cited Reddy, Takano, and Jay to establish that persons of
ordinary skill in the art recognized that the blend of ethylene bis-stearamide
and calcium stearate was known to have been used in amounts within the
claimed weight ratio of about 20:80 to about 80:20 (Answer 6-7).
Valligny establishes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized that a blend of ethylene bis-stearamide and calcium stearate
was known to have been used as a mould release agent for thermoplastic
olefin blends. Valligny’s discussion of a preference for magnesium stearate
does not detract from the suitability of using a blend of ethylene bis-
stearamide wax and calcium stearate. A reference is not limited to the
descriptions of the preferred disclosure. All its portions must be considered
for what they disclose to one of ordinary skill in the art. “[I]n a section 103
inquiry, the fact that a specific [embodiment] is taught to be preferred is not
controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred
embodiments, must be considered.” Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Labs.,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013