Appeal No. 1996-3808 Page 7
Application No. 08/213,832
page 7 of the specification. See Brief, page 4. Having 4
reviewed the data present, we conclude that appellants have not
met their burden of showing unexpected results. In re Klosak,
455 F.2d 1077, 1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA 1972). It is not
sufficient to assert that the results obtained are unusual or
unexpected. The burden of showing unexpected results rests on
them who assert them.
Appellants have asserted that there is a showing of
unexpected properties in the specification. This argument is
not persuasive because appellants have not presented a
comparison with the closest prior art. See In re Baxter
Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed.
Cir. 1991); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191,
196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In the comparative example on page 6 of the specification,
appellants state, “that all of the peroxide was fed to the
inlet port of the reactor.” However, Metzger discloses the
addition of initiator not only to the inlet port of the
reactor, but to at least one additional feed point along the
4We refer to the Substitute Brief on Appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007