Appeal No. 1997-3332
Application No. 08/436,182
In viewing the claims in terms of obviousness, we
recognize that appellants rely upon data presented in their
specification (pages 16-18; Example II), and the Mazzola
Declaration filed on Nov. 2, 1995, as evidence of
nonobviousness. According to appellants and the Mazzola
Declaration, this evidence demonstrates that a Neodol 23-3
based surfactant blend contributes improved cold water residue
properties to a carbonate-based laundry detergent in
comparison with a Neodol
25-3 based surfactant blend as used in the working examples of
the Mazzola patent. However, appellants have failed to1
explain how they arrived at that conclusion based on the data
reported in their specification on page 18 (Example II).
Appellants have the burden of explaining the relevance and
significance of the data presented. See In re Borkowski, 505
F.2d 713, 719, 184 USPQ 29, 33 (CCPA 1974).
Appellants have failed to explain the relevance of the
data upon which they rely. As we see it, in comparative
1According to appellants' specification (page 8 and 11),
Neodol 23-3 is a mixture of ethoxylated C C alcohols;
12- 13
whereas Neodol 25-3 is a mixture of ethoxylated C -C
12 15
alcohols.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007