Appeal No. 96-0112
Application 07/877,913
on the computer program. The predicted results are also not shown to be unexpected since they are
said to be expected from “our understanding of chemistry involved”. See page 2 of the Adornato
affidavit. There is nothing in the record to conclude that the results predicted are derived from reaction
variables or program models, which are not known to or not expected by one of ordinary skill in the art
to affect the desired level of cracking. Indeed, neither the specification nor the Adornato affidavit states
that this difference is “unexpected”. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
Second, the showing in Figure 2, as explained in the Adornato affidavit and pages 16 and 17 of
the specification, is not reasonably commensurate in scope with the degree of protection sought by
appealed claim 1. 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 in Figure
2 is based on the specific cracking conditions (e.g., specific catalyst and temperature known to affect
cracking), specific size (length and width) of a riser reactor, specific residence time, specific quenching
temperature and specific hydrocarbon feedstock described in page 16 of the specification, appealed
claim 1 is not so limited. In spite of the fact that these reaction variables are known to affect the types
of the product obtained, see, e.g., Owen, columns
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007