Appeal No. 96-3841 Page 8
Application No. 08/093,664
In this case the appellant has submitted evidence in the
form of two declarations from the appellant to establish5
unexpected results.
It is well settled that unexpected results must be
established by factual evidence. Mere argument or conclusory
statements in the specification does not suffice. In re De
Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Furthermore, as stated in De Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 706 n. 8, 222
USPQ at 197 n. 8, "A proper showing of unexpected results will
rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Fenn, 639 F.2d
762, 208 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1981); In re Murch, 464 F.2d 1051, 175
USPQ 89 (CCPA 1972)."
The two declarations, taken together, set forth factual
evidence as set forth in Table 1 of the declaration filed on
September 19, 1994. The factual evidence establishes that
Apparatus E provided a 100% elimination rate for H S, CH SH and6 2 3
5Declarations filed September 19, 1994 and July 5, 1995.
6Apparatus E was a deodorizing apparatus wherein the active
carbon honeycomb preceded the phosphoric acid-supporting active
carbon honeycomb.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007