Appeal No. 1996-0670
Application No. 08/043,388
specification merely states that the comparison was done “in
similar fashion” (page 34, line 17). The specification also
fails to disclose the specific procedure for the comparative
example where the dimethyl silicone component is not present
(representing the “prior art”, see Figure 8). The amount of
the remaining component, a dimethylsiloxane-oxyalkylene block
copolymer, is not disclosed. Therefore we cannot determine
whether equal amounts of the polysiloxane materials were
compared. Finally, we observe that the showing in the
specification is not reasonably commensurate in scope with the
degree of protection sought by the claims on appeal. In re
Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir.
1990); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743, 218 USPQ 769, 778
(Fed. Cir. 1983). While the showing is based on specific
polysiloxanes, viscosities, weight ratios, pressure sensitive
adhesive, and laminate film, the claims on appeal are not so
limited (especially claim 53). Appellant has not shown that
the results of Example 1 in the specification are commensurate
in scope with the claims on appeal or would be reasonably
predictive of the subject matter on appeal.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007