Appeal No. 1997-0158
Application No. 08/026,581
697 (CCPA 1966)(it is incumbent on appellants to submit clear
and convincing evidence that the claimed subject matter in
fact exhibits an unexpected results). Specifically,
appellants have not demonstrated that the showing in
appellants’ examples is reasonably commensurate in scope with
the degree of protection sought by the appealed claims. See
In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed.
Cir. 1990); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743, 218 USPQ 769,
778 (Fed. Cir. 1983). While the showing is limited to
utilizing a few specific reactants, a specific palladium
complex catalyst and a specific reaction condition, the
appealed claims are not so limited. On this record,
appellants have proffered no explanation, much less evidence,
to support a conclusion that the demonstrated improvement in
selectivity evidenced in the showing can be reasonably
extrapolated to the claimed hydrogenation reactions employing
a myriad of reactants, palladium catalysts and reaction
conditions materially different from those utilized in
appellants’ showing.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007