Appeal No. 95-0459
Application No. 07/941,845
SPE’s have been demonstrated to be unobvious over the broad
disclosure of SPE’s, and the closest SPE’s exemplified in Baur
and Eckey. See Brief, page 9. We agree. We find the
evidence submitted by appellants in the Declarations of
Timothy B. Guffey, to be dispositive of the remaining issues
before us.
Appellants have submitted two Declarations of Timothy
Guffey wherein three SPE’s made according to the claimed
subject matter were compared with three examples of Baur and
one example of Eckey. The examiner in his Answer responded by
focusing on the differences in stability and viscosity between
Example 1 of Eckey drawn to sucrose stearate and its
comparison with appellants’ C12:C22 SPE, these two examples
being closest in terms of the abovementioned parameters. It
is the examiner’s position that “[s]uch differences in results
are seen to be minor.” However, no rationale in support of
this position was presented in the Answer. See Answer, page
5.
Referring to pages 4 and 5 of the Guffey Declaration
i.e., Appendix B, we find the difference in stability and
viscosity between appellants’ C12:C22 and Example 1 of Eckey
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007