Appeal No. 95-4721
Application No. 08/128,332
considerably higher yield would result. Also, the declarant
fails to explain any expected affect on yield resulting from
the amination of the claimed heterocyclic compounds vis-à-vis
the phenol chloride of Dix.
Consequently, for the reasons outlined above, we find
that appellants have not carried their burden of demonstrating
that the declaration and specification results are truly
unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1099, 231 USPQ
375, 381 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080,
173 USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA 1972).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, it is our judgment
that the evidence of obviousness presented by the examiner
outweighs the evidence of nonobviousness submitted by
appellants. Accordingly, the examiner's decision rejecting
the appealed claims is affirmed.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007