Appeal No. 1996-0670
Application No. 08/043,388
appellant has submitted evidence in rebuttal, we determine the
patentability anew by the preponderance of evidence based on
the totality of the record. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Having reviewed the data in
Figure 8, as disclosed on pages 33-34 of the specification, we
determine that appellant has not met the burden of showing
unexpected results. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-
70, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997);
In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA
1972). Initially, we note that it is not enough that the
results for appellant’s invention and the prior art are
different. Appellant must demonstrate that such results are
unexpected. Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1469-70, 43 USPQ2d at 1365;
Klosak, 455 F.2d at 1080,
173 USPQ at 16. Appellant has not explained the results or
procedures of Example 1 on pages 33-34 of the specification
which result in the production of the data set forth in Figure
8. The comparative examples should be accomplished in the
same manner except for the polysiloxane used but the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007