Appeal No. 2000-0482
Application 08/569,256
604 F.2d 1356, 1361, 202 USPQ 805, 808 (CCPA 1979)(“The evidence
presented to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness must be
commensurate in scope with the claims to which it pertains.”)
A showing of unexpected results must represent a
comparison between the claimed invention and the closest prior
art. In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 392, 21 USPQ2d
1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Appellants concede that Horiuchi
discloses a mold release agent containing components A and C.
Appeal Brief, page 8. Appellants further agree that Horiuchi
teaches a composition containing PTFE. However, appellants note
that Horiuchi fails to disclose a specific molecular weight for
the PTFE used in the composition. Appeal Brief, pages 8-9.
According to appellants, “the present invention includes PTFE in
a specific molecular weight range (50,000-500,000) with the
object of creating an enhanced synergistic effect for superior
mold release properties.” Appeal Brief, page 9. However, the
proof of unexpected results is limited to a single species within
the claimed range, i.e., a PTFE having a molecular weight of
200,000. See, Yamaguchi Declaration, page 2, Experiment 1.
While the declaration does include a comparison of the claimed
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007