Appeal No. 1997-1280 Page 5
Application No. 08/356,912
examples of the invention needed to be present in a far smaller concentration than the
dimethoxy compound of the prior art.
A third Declaration again compared N-[2,3-dihydro-2-(1-pyrrolidinyl)-1H-inden-1-yl]-
3,4-dimethoxy-N-methyl-benzene- acetamide of the prior art with the compounds of
Examples 6, 7 and 19, N-[2,3-dihydro-2-(1-pyrrolidinyl)-1H-inden-1-yl]-N-methyl-3-
trifluoromethyl-benzene- acetamide, N-[2,3-dihydro-2-(1-pyrrolidinyl)-1H-inden-1-yl]-N-
methyl-2-trifluoromethyl-benzene- acetamide, and 3,5-bis(trifluoromethyl)-N-[2,3-dihydro-2-
(1-pyrrolidinyl)-1H-inden-1-yl]-N-methyl-benzene- acetamide, respectively. The tests
likewise showed that the examples of the invention needed to be present in a far smaller
concentration than the dimethoxy compound of the prior art.
Appellants argue that, “the showings of record clearly demonstrate the patentable
features of the claimed compounds with respect to those of the Pennev et al. reference and
that the showings are commensurate in scope with the present claims.” See Brief, page 3.
We disagree.
Having 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.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007