Ex parte Henkins et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 12, 1999

08319702 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 12, 1999)

Application for patent filed October 7, 1994. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 10
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte E. SCOTT HENKINS and JOHN C. WITTENAUER
____________
Appeal No. 1996-3937
Application No. 08/319,7021
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before JOHN D. SMITH, WALTZ and LORIN, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JOHN D. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
final rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-12.
Claim 1 and 9 are representative and are reproduced
below:
1. An additive dust free blend consisting essentially of
compacted particles having a substantially circular cross-
Appeal No. 1996-3937
Application No. 08/319,702
2
section and a diameter from about 1/16 to about 1/4 inch and
consisting essentially of:
Appeal No. 1996-3937
Application No. 08/319,702
3
(a) a pentaerythritol phosphite present at a level of
from 10 to 90 percent by weight based on the total weight of
the
particles;

(b) a hindered phenolic isocyanurate present at a level
of from 10 to 90 percent by weight based on the total weight
of the particles;
(c) a metal salt of a fatty acid present at a level of
from 2 to 60 percent by weight based on the total weight of
the particles;
(d) a hydrotalcite present at a level of from 1 to 10
percent by weight based on the total weight of the particles;
and
(e) less than one percent by weight additional
materials.
9. A method for making a dust free compacted particle,
comprising the steps of
(a) blending a pentaerythritol diphosphite, a
hindered phenolic isocyanurate, a
metal salt of a fatty
acid and a hydrotalcite
to form a stabilizer
blend composition,
comprising from 10 to 90
percent by weight of
said phosphite, and from
10 to 90 percent by
weight of said hindered
phenolic isocyanurate,
and from 2 to 60 percent
by weight of said metal
salt of a fatty acid,
and from 1 to 10 percent
by weight of said
hydrotalcite; and
Appeal No. 1996-3937
Application No. 08/319,702
4
(b) compacting said composition to form a densified
compact,
(c) pelletizing the densified compact under pressure
into particles.
Appeal No. 1996-3937
Application No. 08/319,702
5
The references of record relied upon are:
Gilles 4,025,486 May 24, 1977
Pollock et al. (Pollock) 4,368,139 Jan. 11, 1983
Van Asbroeck et al. ( Van Asbroeck) 4,670,493 June 2,
1987
Miyata 4,675,356 June 23, 1987
Matumura 5,015,679 May 14, 1991
Dunski 5,028,486 July 2, 1991
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
in view of the combined teachings in the above cited
references.
We cannot sustain the stated rejection.
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a dust free
blend of compacted particles that consist essentially of a
pentaerythritol phosphite, a hindered phenolic isocyanurate, a
metal salt of a fatty acid (e.g., calcium stearate), and a
hydrotalcite, and a method of making a dust free compacted
particle from a blend of the above components by forming a
densified compact of the blend and pelletizing the densified
compact into particles. The compacted particles are said to
exhibit reduced levels of dust, and are durable during
handling. The compacted particles are useful as a
stabilizing additive blend for polymeric compositions.
Appeal No. 1996-3937
Application No. 08/319,702
Appellants cancelled originally presented composition2
claim 6 during prosecution. See the amendment filed May 8,
1995.
6
The examiner’s conclusion that the claimed subject matter
herein would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in this art is based on the combined disclosures in six prior
art references. Although appellants argue that the relied
upon references provide no support for combining the claimed
components of the blend of appellants’ appealed claim 1 “in a
single resin composition or in a single composition of any2
kind" (brief, page 4), it is our view that a person of
ordinary skill in this art would have been led to utilize the
known “acid neutralizing stabilizers”, i.e., calcium stearate
(a metal salt of a fatty acid) and a hydrotalcite in
combination (as taught in Matumura at column 3, lines 42-51)
with the pentaerythritol phosphite/hydroxyphenylalkyleneyl
isocyanurate (a hindered phenolic isocyanurate) stabilizer
combination of Gilles invited by Gilles’ statement at column
6, lines 5-8 that “other ingredients known in the art as
thermal and/or oxidative stabilizers” may also be used in his
compositions. See Gilles at column 4, lines 57-63. Also
Appeal No. 1996-3937
Application No. 08/319,702
7
compare example 1 of Giles wherein the stabilizers are added
to a polypropylene polymer. The examiner’s argument that the
combination of the above prior art compounds would have been
expected to produce a “cooperative effect” exceeding “any two
or three component stabilizer” combination (answer, page 3) is
factually supported by Van Asbroeck’s teaching that such
stabilizing systems typically contain additional stabilizing
compounds that “frequently increase synergistically the
efficiency (emphasis added)” of the phenolic antioxidant
component. See Van Asbroeck at column 1, lines 25-27. Also
see this reference at column 1, lines 27-37. Thus, in our
view, the combined use of appellants’ four stabilizing
components in a polymeric composition such as polypropylene is
fairly suggested by the applied prior art. The dispositive
issue raised by the appealed subject matter, however, is
whether one of ordinary skill in this art would have been led
to combine the four stabilizing components in the form of an
additive dust free blend of compacted particles as required by
appealed claim 1. For the reasons advanced in the brief and
below, we answer this question in the negative.
Appeal No. 1996-3937
Application No. 08/319,702
8
In their brief at page 3, appellants emphasize that the
addition of polymeric stabilizer additives of the kind claimed
is usually made by separately adding each of the additives
into the polymeric composition, in contrast to preformulating
the additives into a single additive package in the form of
dust free blend of compacted particles by a pelletizing
process. For example, Matumura discloses the conventional
method in which the additives are “premixed” with the polymer
(see column 3, lines 49 and 50). Alternatively, we note that
Gilles and Van Asbroeck form solutions or suspensions of the
stabilizing compounds (in contrast to compacted particles)
which are then mixed with the polymer. See Gilles at column
5, lines 53-58 and Van Asbroeck at column 4, lines 51-63.
With respect to the
issue raised by the compacted particle claim language, the
examiner emphasizes that Dunski discloses that fine powdery
metallic stearates such as calcium stearate, which produce
hazardous dust, may be combined with a binder to form a pellet
which avoids dust formation. See Dunski at column 1, lines
26-28 and lines 63-68. The examiner further argues that the
application of Dunski’s pelletizing technique “to other
Appeal No. 1996-3937
Application No. 08/319,702
With respect to prior art stabilizer blends of soft3
particles which are associated with substantial amounts of
dust, appellants’ admissions in the specification only
generally refer to “[C]ertain blends of phosphites, hindered
phenolics and neutralizers” without identification of the
specific compounds in question. See the specification at page
1, lines 23-26.
9
admittedly known dusting type additives for polymers
(specification at page 1 and 2)” to reduce “dustiness”
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in this
art. We observe, however, that the prior art admissions in3
appellants’ specification referred to by the examiner do not
specifically identify appellants’ claimed components, i.e.,
pentaerythritol phosphite compounds, hindered phenolic
isocyanurate compounds, or hydrotalcites, as “known dusting
type additives”. In the absence of prior art knowledge of a
potential dusting problem with appellants’ composition, no
reason exists to pelletize the composition to produce a “dust
free blend of compacted particles” as claimed herein. In
short, we agree with appellants that the relied upon
references (inclusive of the prior art admissions) do not
provide adequate motivation or suggestion for combining the
claimed components in a compacted
Appeal No. 1996-3937
Application No. 08/319,702
10
particulate form. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse
the stated rejection of the appealed claims.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
JOHN D. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
THOMAS A. WALTZ ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HUBERT C. LORIN )
jrg Administrative Patent Judge )
Robert E. Walter
General Electric Company
One Plastics Avenue
Pittsfield, MA 01201
Appeal No. 1996-3937
Application No. 08/319,702
11