Appeal No. 96-0359
Serial No. 08/083,866
195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977). In the present case, we find that the ethylene blends of Bailey
sufficiently correspond to appellants' claimed ethylene blends to require appellants to
establish on this record that ethylene blends within the scope of the appealed claims are patentably
distinct from the ethylene blends fairly taught by Bailey. However, in our view, appellants have not met
their burden.
Appellants argue that using the most "optimistic" HMW component data in Bailey, i.e., a density
of 0.930 and a HLMI of 0.1, Bailey's regression equation, at best, predicts a maximum dart drop value
of only 239, while claim 14 requires a dart drop range of 250 to 600 (Brief pages 3-6, 11-12;
Shirodkar II (affidavit executed January 13, 1995) at pages 1-2). However, a “predicted” value is an
estimated value. Moreover, we agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to one of7
ordinary skill in the art to adjust the density and HLMI of the HMW component to optimize the dart
drop value given its significant dependency on the density and HLMI of the HMW component as
disclosed by Bailey’s regression model at column 26, line 57 through column 27, line 8 (Answer pages
11-12). In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220
F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Appellants also argue Bailey's regression model does not predict the dart drop values actually
obtained in the examples of the specification (Brief pages 3-6, 8-12, 16-17; Shirodkar I (affidavit
7 For example, Bailey’s example 11 produced a film which had a measured dart drop of 240 g., but a
“predicted” dart drop of only 216 g.
Page 8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007