Appeal No. 1996-1735
Application No. 08/184,526
showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results
relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d
1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). However,
appellants' alleged unexpected results are based on conclusory
statements at pages 17 and 18 of the specification. See
Brief, pages 7 and 9. Mere arguments in the Brief or
conclusory statements in the specification do not suffice. In
re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir.
1984); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA
1978); In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358
(CCPA 1972). It is by now well settled that unexpected
results must be established by factual evidence. Moreover, we
note that appellants have not explained just how or why the
evidence in the specification substantiates their bare
assertion of criticality. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1344,
41 USPQ2d 1451, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the burden is on
appellants to show why the evidence they relied on is
unexpected). Nor have appellants supplied any comparison with
the closest prior art, In re Buerckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179,
201 USPQ 67, 71 (CCPA 1979), or any showing commensurate in
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007