Appeal No. 95-5080
Application 07/952,122
comparative and one cannot conclude that the difference in
results is attributable to the addition of bisphenol A and not to
the absence of the hardener.
The showing must be commensurate with the scope of the
claims. Here, the singular example does not provide an adequate
basis to conclude that the broad range of active hydrogen
compounds claimed would behave in the same manner. This is
important, especially where as here, the prior art suggests the
use of amines in these systems which fall within the scope of the
instant claims.
Lastly, appellants rely on fracture toughness of the
cured product. However, they fail to explain what it is, how it
is measured, what the desired values should be or what is
significant about fracture toughness of the obtained value, etc.
In this regard, the patent applicant or declarant has the burden
of showing unexpected results, In re Klosak, supra, and the
additional burden of explaining the evidence of nonobviousness
proffered. In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 719, 184 USPQ 29, 33
(CCPA 1974). Hence, the burden is upon appellants to explain the
precise meaning and significance of the test data obtained, and
why the difference in results are in fact unexpected, unobvious
and of both statistical and practical significance. We find the
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007