Appeal No. 94-0898
Application No. 07/785,644
invention (hot water treatment) works no better than acac.
Appellant=s interpretation of the Table fails to explain these
seemingly incongruous results. What all of this might mean is
that palladium is removed from the polyketone copolymer in the
Blytas tests but is not recovered in a pure state. After all the
Table is entitled APalladium Removal From Polyketone@. If so
interpreted, the results disclosed by Blytas do not constitute a
negative teaching at all with regard to the Aremoval@ of
palladium catalyst residue from a polyketone copolymer, as called
for by the instant claims. Accordingly, Blytas= results appear
to be subject to more than one interpretation, and we find no
reason why we should accept appellant=s interpretation over the
alternative explanation outlined above. In any case, the
inherent contradictions in Blytas relating to Table 1 compel us
to give the tabulated data little weight.
We are also unpersuaded by the examples presented in
appellant=s specification. Appellants would like us to view
Example No.6 as a comparative example demonstrating that the
effectiveness of acac is lost if concentration and temperature
are each below some critical threshold level. However, the
specification indicates that all the examples, apparently even
including Example No. 6, Aillustrate the invention@ (page 2,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007