Appeal No. 94-4145
Application No. 07/882,252
claims. See In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d
1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990). While the showings in the
examples at pages 28-29 of the specification are limited to
employing particular amounts of specific pesticides, specific
calcined silicon dioxides, specific surfactant and optionally
specific additional ingredients, the appealed claims are not
so limited. Appellants, however, have not offered any
evidence to support the conclusion that the demonstrated
results based on limited examples can reasonably be
extrapolated to the plethora of pesticide compositions having
multifarious ingredients embraced by the appealed claims.
Moreover, appellants have not made any averments in the
specification that the demonstrated results referred to are
“unexpected”. Nor did appellants submit such averments
through the Ogawa declarations. Accordingly, appellants
cannot be said to have established that the demonstrated
results are “unexpected”. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1471, 43 USPQ 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Thus, having considered all of the evidence of record, we
determine that the evidence of obviousness, on balance,
outweighs the evidence of unobviousness. Hence, we agree with
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007