Ex parte NEFF et al. - Page 10




              Appeal No. 1996-2115                                                                                            
              Application 08/809,933                                                                                          


              3.9 molar parts per million is equivalent to a 5 weight parts per million of MBA and results                    
              in a water-soluble product.  With this in mind, we refer to Zweigle which discloses                             
              microgels which comprise acrylamide and MBA wherein the MBA may be present in an                                
              amount as low as 5 weight parts per million weight parts of total monomers (column 4,                           
              lines 10-19).  Although these microgels are described as water-swellable by Zweigle, they                       
              are products which would be described as water-soluble in the present invention.  Thus,                         
              appellants’ argument that microgels are necessarily water-insoluble is incorrect.  The                          
              evidence of record establishes that the same product can be termed “water-swellable”                            
              (Zweigle) or “water soluble” (present invention).  It is a  matter of semantics as to whether                   
              the microgels of Candau are termed “water swellable”, “water-soluble” or “water insoluble.”                     
              There is no clear line of demarcation between these states as argued by appellants.                             
                      Accordingly, we find no error in the examiner’s conclusion of prima facie                               
              obviousness.                                                                                                    
                      We have carefully considered the evidence of non-obviousness relied upon by                             
              appellants but do not find that it outweighs the evidence of nonobviousness.                                    
                      Appellants argue that Table 2 shows that Examples 1-6 outperform Comparative                            
                           •                                                                                                  
              example 1A (Brief, page 9). The burden of showing unexpected results rests on the                               
              proponent of the evidence.  In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA                            
              1972).  In submitting evidence to establish unobvious results, there is a burden on                             


                                                             10                                                               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007