Appeal No. 94-4034
Application No. 07/804,160
In re D’Ancicco, 439 F.2d 1244, 1248, 169 USPQ 303, 306 (CCPA
1971)(the difference in results must be significant and of
practical advantage). This, appellants have not done. In fact,
the specification does not even state that these differences are
“unexpected”. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d
1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Second, the showing in the specification examples is not
reasonably commensurate in scope with the degree of the
protection sought by appealed claim 5. See In re Grasselli,
713 F.2d 731, 743, 218 USPQ 769, 778 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re
Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
While the showing is limited to employing a particular polymer
composition having specific portions of specific ingredients,
including two specific impact modifiers, appealed claim 5 is not
so limited. Appellants, however, have not offered any evidence
to support that the demonstrated results based on a single
representative polymer composition can reasonably be extrapolated
to the plethora of polymer compositions having multifarious
ingredients (including multifarious impact modifiers) embraced
by appealed claim 5.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007