Appeal No. 1997-1018
Application No. 08/369,944
Appellants argue that the data from the specification
shows the “important relationship” between the MVTR and the
hydroxyethyl acrylate content (Brief, page 3, citing Tables I,
II and III on page 14 of the specification). Therefore, we
reevaluate the evidence of prima facie obviousness in view of
the countervailing evidence of nonobviousness. However,
appellants’ evidence is not persuasive of nonobviousness since
there is no comparison with the closest prior art (i.e., the
12% hydroxyethyl methacrylate of Salve). In re Burckel, 592
F.2d 1175, 1179,
201 USPQ 67, 71 (CCPA 1979). Furthermore, the comparison is
not commensurate with or predictive of the scope of the
claimed subject matter. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 277, 205
USPQ 215, 220 (CCPA 1980). The comparison involves specific
monomers at certain concentrations while the claims are not so
limited. Finally, the amount of the hydroxyethyl acrylate is
not the only variable in the comparison and thus the cause and
effect sought to be shown is lost. In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433,
439, 146 USPQ 479, 483 (CCPA 1965). The comparison involves
adhesive coatings of different thicknesses. As noted by
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007