Appeal No. 95-5080
Application 07/952,122
inconclusive to establish that the claimed epoxy resin exhibits a
difference, that the difference actually obtained is unexpected
and of a practical advantage. In re Freeman 474 F.2d 1318, 1324,
177 USPQ 139, 143 (CCPA 1973), citing In re Klosak, 455 F.2d
1077, 1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA 1972). See also In re
D'Ancicco, 439 F.2d 1244, 1248, 169 USPQ 303, 306 (CCPA 1971).
Eldin’s test composition B which is allegedly based
upon Henton, employs an epoxy resin, toughener and amine curing
agent but does not include a hardener, as disclosed and claimed
by Henton. Test composition A based upon the instant claims,
employs an epoxy resin, a toughener, a hardener-amine accelerator
combination and bisphenol A. Eldin concludes that the results
show the unexpected superiority of the claimed composition over
those of Henton with respect to fracture toughness--the products
according to the invention are said to exhibit an improvement of
about 70% over those of Henton.
As noted, composition A includes components b and d
whereas test composition B contains neither. Hence, the two
tested compositions differ by more than the addition of the
component having two active hydrogen atoms. Since Henton
discloses and claims the addition of a hardener, and the hardener
is not part of test composition B, the comparison is not truly
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007