Appeal No. 95-0459
Application No. 07/941,845
to be unusual and unexpected, particularly as the distinction
in both properties arise from the choice of particular
homologs of long chain saturated fatty acids in particular
mole ratios, and the omission of unsaturated long chain fatty
acids. We find this comparison of the closest example of the
prior art with the closest example of appellants’ claimed
subject matter, which results in an 18% increase in stability
coupled with substantially more than a doubling of the
viscosity for appellants’ composition, to be both unusual and
unexpected. Moreover, in view of the Answer’s failure to
challenge Declarants’ conclusion that the viscosities achieved
by his invention are non-pourable as compared to Eckey’s
pourable composition, we are constrained to agree with the
conclusions reached by Declarant. See the Guffey Declaration,
Appendix B, page 5.
For the above reasons, we conclude, evaluating the
examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness in view of
appellants’ evidence and arguments, that based on the totality
of the record before us, the preponderance of evidence weighs
in favor of non-
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007