APPLICATION OF LINDNER

• Decision Date: 06 April 1972
• Docket Number: Patent Appeal No. 8684.
• Citation: 457 F.2d 506,173 USPQ 356
• Parties: Application of Paul L. LINDNER.
• Court: U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)

173 USPQ 356, 457 F.2d 506 (1972)

Application of Paul L. LINDNER.

Patent Appeal No. 8684.

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

April 6, 1972.

Sidney Wallenstein, Chicago, Ill. (Wallenstein, Spangenberg, Hattis & Strampel, Chicago, Ill.), attys. of record, for appellant; Samuel Stearman, Washington, D. C., of counsel.

S. Wm. Cochran, Washington, D. C., for the Commissioner of Patents; Jack E. Armore, Washington, D. C., of counsel.

Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN and LANE, Judges, and MALETZ, Judge, United States Customs Court, sitting by designation.

ALMOND, Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals affirming the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 in appellant's application entitled "Dispersant Compositions Comprising (A) Phosphoric Esters of Ethoxylated Long Chain Compounds and (B) Surfactant Polybasic Compounds Containing at Least One Sulfonic or Sulfuric Acid Radical."¹ No claims have been allowed.

The invention relates to dispersant compositions which are particularly useful in emulsifying water-insoluble organic solvent solutions of biocidal toxicant (i. e., insecticide, weed killer, herbicide, or soil fumigant) and aqueous solutions of fertilizer material. Appellant states in his specification that while a number of dispersant compositions are known which produce excellent dispersions of biocidal toxicants in aqueous solutions of a wide variety of water-soluble fertilizers, there are some fertilizer solutions (for example, liquid fertilizers commonly referred to as 7-21-7 and 6-18-6) which are particularly resistant or refractory to the production of fully satisfactory dispersions. The claimed dispersant compositions comprise ingredients (a) and (b) which are said to "coact to produce a synergistic effect" in that they produce stable dispersions with refractory fertilizer solutions as well as other fertilizer solutions. The compounds which may be used as ingredient (a) are water-soluble to readily water-dispersible phosphoric acid mono-and di-esters of polyoxyethylene ethers, usually in the form of ethylene oxide adducts, of long chain aliphatic alcohols, long chain aliphatic mercaptans and alkyl phenols. The compounds which may be used as ingredient (b) are organic solvent-soluble surfactant polybasic acids which contain at least one radical selected from the group consisting of sulfonic acid and sulfuric acid radicals.

Claim 1 is illustrative:

1. A dispersant composition comprising (a) a water-soluble to readily water-dispersible phosphoric acid ester of at least one member selected from the group consisting of (1) long chain aliphatic ethers and thioethers of polyoxyethylene glycols, the long chain aliphatic radicals containing from 10 to 26 carbon atoms, and (2) polyoxyethylene glycol ethers of alkylated phenols the alkyl radical or radicals of which contain a total of from 7 to 24 carbon atoms, the number of oxyethylene groups in the molecules of said (a) compounds falling within the range of 4 to 30, and (b) an organic solvent-soluble surfactant polybasic acid compound containing at least one radical selected from the group consisting of sulfonic and sulfuric acid radicals.

Like claim 1, claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11 are directed to dispersant compositions. The recitation of the composition of ingredients (a) and (b) varies in breadth in these claims. Claims 13 and 15 are directed to toxicant concentrate containing a dispersant composition. Claims 17 and 19 are for a combination of biocidal toxicant water-soluble organic salt fertilizer composition emulsified with a dispersant composition. Appellant, in his brief, indicates that he considers claims 10, 11 and 17, as well as claim 1, to be illustrative. However, since all the claims have otherwise been considered together by both the Patent Office and appellant, they apparently will stand or fall together.

The references relied upon are:

                  Lindner          2,976,211       March 21, 1961
                  Nunn et al
                    (Nunn)         3,004,056     October 10, 1961
                

Lindner discloses dispersant compositions (as well as toxicant concentrates and dispersions comprising toxicants and aqueous solutions of water-soluble fertilizers) containing (a) certain polybasic acid compound surfactants and (b) certain amine salts of alkyl benzene sulfonic acids. Ingredient (a) of the mixture in the Lindner patent is the same as ingredient (b) of the claimed mixture.

Nunn discloses that phosphoric acid esters of various ethylene oxide adducts, the same compounds as those of ingredient (a) of the claimed mixture, may be used generally as dispersing agents.

The examiner rejected all the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lindner in view of Nunn, reasoning that since the compounds shown in Lindner and the compounds shown in Nunn are each known to be dispersants, it would have been obvious to combine these two old dispersants, and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a mixture of such dispersants also to be a dispersant. The board agreed with the examiner.

We, too, agree with the examiner. The polybasic acid compounds of ingredient (b) and the phosphoric acid esters of ingredient (a) are all known dispersants as...