Appeal No. 96-1790
Application No. 08/285,375
has not included any explanation that “tensile elongation” is
an accepted test for chemical resistance, nor any explanation
of what constitutes “critical strain” and how is it
determined. The comparative examples on page 13 of the
specification also contain polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
which is not required in the molding composition of appealed
claim 1. Appellant has not shown that the differences in
results, especially in Table 3, are in fact unexpected and of
statistical and practical significance. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d
1339, 1344, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(“Even [sic,
if] it were obvious to a practitioner of the art [that the
results were unexpected], applicants have the burden to
provide the PTO with evidence showing that such is the
case.”).
“After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant
in response [to a case of prima facie obviousness],
patentability is determined on the totality of the record, by
a preponderance of evidence with due consideration to
persuasiveness of argument. [Citations omitted].” In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007