Appeal No. 1999-2161 Page 10
Application No.08/475,127
uncontroverted fact that all would expect to gain from such a
combination is an additive benefit of the contribution of each
to scorch retardation, and that to increase scorch retardation,
one would simply be required to add greater and greater
quantities of either or both components. See paragraph 33 of
the Myers, Callais, Palys Joint Declaration (Paper No. 8).
(brief, page 24). Appellants also state that one would also
logically expect that in addition to the expected additive
effect on scorch retardation one would predict from a
combination of two individual members of the known scorch
retarder classes, one would also expect a similar additive
effect on scorch time and interference with crosslinking
efficiency and properties. See paragraph 34 of the Myers,
Callais, Palys Joint Declaration (Paper No. 8). (brief, page
25).
We fully appreciate the point appellants attempt to make
here. However, we have reviewed the data (discussed above) and
remain unconvinced by the data for the reasons discussed above.
Furthermore, e.g., example 12 on pages 49-50 of appellants’
specification, attempts to illustrate that Sample I achieves
more than an additive benefit (the additive benefit, e.g., as
discussed at length in the Myers, Callais, Palys Joint
Declaration of Paper No. 8). However, we find that differing
quantities of ingredients (e.g., some of the quantities listed
on page 49 differ from sample to sample) are used, such that a
comparison of Samples F, G, H, I, and J made on page 50, is not
a true comparison. We note that it is not an unreasonable
burden on appellants to require comparative examples relied on
for nonobviousness to be truly comparative. Here, the cause and
effect sought to be proven is loss here in the welter of unfixed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007