Appeal No. 96-2898
Application No. 08/340,998
settled that it is an appellants’ burden to demonstrate that
the difference in results obtained through a claimed invention
and those obtained by the prior art would not have been
expected by one skilled in the art. Here, appellants have not
met this burden.
In any event, we agree with the examiner that no claim on
appeal is reasonably commensurate in scope with the limited
showing of alleged unexpected results. In this regard, the
tested compositions referred to in appellants’ specification
involve the blends of very specific copolymers including, for
example, an esterified alpha-olefin maleic anhydride
copolymer prepared by reacting a C to C blend of linear 3
10 18
alpha olefins with maleic anhydride. The appealed claims,
however, are much broader in scope, covering numerous other
OMA copolymer components, e.g., an esterified olefin-maleic
anhydride copolymer prepared from a 1-octadiene olefin as
exemplified in the example of Bridger. Thus, we find no
adequate basis for concluding that the great number of
3Appellants do not report the relative proportions of the
specific linear alpha olefins in this blend. See the
specification at page 11, line 1.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007