Appeal No. 2006-1506 Page 10
Application No. 10/858,576
appellants fairly evinced that the presence of a polystyrene seed
latex during emulsion polymerization necessarily results in such
a structure.
Moreover, the different properties for the claimed product
that appellants assert is established by Examples 1 and 2 and
Tables 2-4 of the specification is not persuasive in that Example
2 has not been demonstrated as being commensurate in scope with
representative claim 1 and alleged comparison Example 1 has not
been established as fairly representing the products described in
each of the applied references for reasons as set forth above and
in the answer. Moreover, multiple unfixed variables exist in the
comparison as a review of Examples 1 and 2 of the specification
readily makes clear, as further discussed above and in the
answer. Concerning this matter, appellants, not the Board, have
the burden of coming forward with evidence, including ferreting
out particular facts (e.g., data) from the specification, which
may support appellants’ position. This appellants have not
accomplished by the general references to the specification
Examples and Tables in the brief (paragraph bridging pages 4 and
5). Here, appellants simply have not met the requisite burden to
show that the process limitations of representative product-by-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007