Appeal No. 95-1326
Application 08/078,808
instant invention ... as compared to the prior art polymers."
However, the examiner points out that the comparative evidence
utilizes a wavelength of exposure of 254 nm., whereas claim 1
recites exposing at a wavelength of about 200-500 nm. It is the
examiner's position that the evidence presented by appellants is
not commensurate in scope with the claims.
After carefully considering the examiner's position, we have
decided that the comparative evidence is sufficient to rebut the
prima facie case of obviousness. As noted by the Court in In re
Chupp, 816 F.2d 643, 646, 2 USPQ2d 1437, 1439 (Fed. Cir. 1987),
it is not required that a compound "must produce superior results
in every environment in which the compound may be used". Rather,
evidence that a compound is unexpectedly superior in one of a
spectrum of properties, as here, can be sufficient to rebut a
prima facie case of obviousness. Appellants have demonstrated
the superiority of the claimed compounds for use as photoresists.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007