Appeal No. 1997-1684
Application No. 08/223,916
While we find that appellants have provided some evidence
of unexpected results, those results are based on comparison
testing limited to specific electron donor molar ratios and to
the use of CMDS as the only exemplary electron donor of the ED
2 type. Appellants have not offered any cogent reasoning or
additional evidence to support a conclusion that the
demonstrated results can reasonably be extrapolated to claimed
subject matter of considerably greater scope. Accordingly, we
conclude that the evidence is not commensurate in scope with
those claims not limited to specific electron donor molar
ratios and to the use of CMDS, in particular, as the ED 2
component of the electron donor mixture. At best, we find
that the evidence of unexpected results is reasonably
commensurate in scope with those claims which are so limited,
i.e. claims 43-44, 51-52,
61-62 and 69-70.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the examiner
is affirmed as to claims 13-14, 29-42, 45-50, 53-60 and 63-68,
and reversed as to claims 43-44, 51-52, 61-62 and 69-70.
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007