Appeal No. 94-4034
Application No. 07/804,160
and appellants do not dispute that Abe teaches at column 6, lines
45-68, that “impact modifiers such as the rubber-like materials
can be [employed] individually or as mixtures thereof “ in a
similar polymer composition.
Appellants also argue that the examples in the specification
rebut the prima facie case of obviousness proffered by the
examiner. See Brief, page 6. The examples show a comparison
between two compositions having specific impact modifiers
individually (designated as B* and C*) and a composition having a
mixture of the same two specific impact modifiers (designated as
I). See specification, pages 6-8. According to appellants, the
showing in the specification examples demonstrates that the
claimed composition employing two impact modifiers imparts
unexpected results over that described in the applied prior art
references. See Brief, page 6. We are not persuaded by this
argument.
First, it is not enough for appellants to show that the
results for appellants’ invention and the comparative examples
differ. Appellants have the burden of showing that the
differences are significant and unexpected. See In re Freeman,
474 F.2d 1318, 1324, 177 USPQ 139, 143 (CCPA 1973)(the burden of
showing unexpected results rests on appellants who rely on them);
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007