Appeal No. 95-1959
Application 07/894,128
replacement of polypropylene grit with polyethylene grit.
We have not overlooked appellants' entreaty that we
separately consider the patentability of claim 6, said to be
commensurate in scope with appellants' evidence of
nonobviousness, in light of the declarations. Nevertheless,
claim 6 does not further define the support or carrier recited
in claim 1 but only limits the catalysts in Claim 1 to
catalysts prepared from particular metals and unsaturated
cyclic hydrocarbons. In light of the admission by appellants
that it is the support or carrier which yields their
unexpected or surprising results we do not understand
appellants' naked conclusion at page 7 of their main brief
that claim 6 "must stand as separately patentable." Suffice
it to say appellants have not explained the basis for their
conclusion.
Based on all the above, we agree with the examiner's
explicit and implicit conclusions that the declarations set
forth inadequate details for us determine if a truly
comparable comparison has been made. Moreover, the examiner
has made certain factual findings in his Answer at pages 5, 6
and 7 which findings appellants had an opportunity to rebut in
their reply brief but which they chose not even to address.
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007