Appeal No. 1996-3367 Page 9 Application No. 08/480,554 lower sodium chloride ratio method that would necessarily alleviate any concerns of a skilled artisan that may have been identified by Böttger. In particular, we note that appellants suggested comparison of Example 2 of Böttger with appellants' Example 2 is not convincing in establishing that the ratio of sodium chloride to iron chloride ever exceeded 0.5 in Example 2 of Böttger (brief, pages 6 and 7). We note, for instance, that a washing step, a different reaction pressure and temperature, a larger size reactor, etc. were present in Example 2 of Böttger as compared to appellants' Example 2. Contrary to appellants' assertions, we find that it cannot be ascertained from a direct comparison of the above-noted examples, the origin of the allegedly differing results due to the number of unconstrained variables. See In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 439, 146 USPQ 479, 483 (CCPA 1965) ("[t]he cause and effect sought to be proven is lost here in the welter of unfixed variables"). In addition, we find that appellants have not demonstrated that Example 2 in their specification is reasonably commensurate in scope with the degree of protection sought by the appealed claims. See In re Kulling, 897 F.2dPage: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007