Appeal No. 96-1675
Application No. 08/317,977
1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA 1972). In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341,
1343, 1344, 166 USPQ 406, 409 (CCPA 1970).
In submitting evidence asserted to establish unexpected
or improved results, there is also a burden on the party
submitting the evidence to indicate how the proposed
comparison claimed to represent their claimed invention is
considered to relate to the examples intended to represent the
prior art and, particularly, how the examples said to be
representative of the prior art do, in fact, represent the
scope of the prior art. See In re Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713,
718, 719, 184 USPQ 29, 33 (CCPA 1974); In re Goodman, 476 F.2d
1365, 1369, 177 USPQ 574, 577 (CCPA 1973). This appellant has
not done concerning the specification examples.
The data in Table 9 at page 15 of the specification is
described at page 14, lines 17 and 18 as being "based on DA4"
but "made up with different hydroxylamine levels." The
ingredients which make up "DA4" may be found at pages 13 and
14 of the specification. Although it would not be illogical
for us to presume from said disclosure that the compositions
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007