Appeal No. 2005-1083
Application No. 09/950,642
for recognizing inherent results of prior art processes. Compare
In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1302, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA
1974)(without novelty, a showing of unexpected results is
irrelevant).
Even if we must consider alleged unexpected results shown in
the declaration, our conclusion will not be altered. We find
that the declaration does not establish that the claimed
invention imparts unexpected results.
First, we cannot ascertain from the declaration that the
alleged unexpected improvement is due to, inter alia, the amount
of polyvinyl alcohol (dispersing aid) used, the type of polyvinyl
alcohol source used, the type of agitating conditions used
(agitator tip speed, temperature, time, etc.) or the claimed
mixing sequence as alleged. See In re Heyna, 360 F.2d 222, 228,
149 USPQ 692, 697 (CCPA 1966)(the cause-and-effect relationship
which the appellant desires to show between the claimed mixing
sequence and the improved results (uniformly formed paper having
no spindle formation). In this regard, we note that sheet #4,
which is said to be representative of the appellant’s invention,
is made by adding 6.0 grams of uncoated nickel fiber in 4000
grams of “a 4% solution of Air Products & Chemicals Airvol #540
polyvinyl alcohol in water” having a viscosity of 27 centipoise.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007