Appeal No. 95-0311
Application No. 07/976,846
prior art composition. Again see example 25, test
compound 39 of the patent.
We take this to mean that the comparisons are not side by side
and do not consider the closest prior art compounds.
Appellant’s Table I measures thermal stabilization of
various prior art compounds in polyacetal as compared to
appellant’s compound, 0.30 acetylated 1A, which is 1,3,8-
triaza-3-dodecyl-8-acetal -7,7,9,9-tetramethyl-spiro
[4,5]decane-2,4-dione. Appellant has tabulated his results4
as the time necessary to achieve a 3.0 wt% CH O loss at 259EC.
2
On the other hand, Murayama, example 25, appearing at column
39, lines 21 to 45, in particular Table 9, tabulates his
results with respect to his compounds as the percent reduction
in weight at 222EC after 30 minutes. Since appellant has not
tabulated his results in the same manner as Murayama’s Table
9, the results are not side by side comparisons from which we
can ascertain whether appellant’s representative compound
exhibits any unexpected results over any of the compounds
listed in example 25, which compounds would be expected to
4This compound differs in one respect from compound 170
of Murayama in that in the 3 position of Murayama’s compound
has octyl whereas appellant’s compound has dodecyl.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007