Appeal No. 1997-2446
Application 08/223,351
functionality to the polymer and can introduce salts into the
product. Again, see Holy at column 2, lines 8 through 12.
Appellants contend that even if a prima facie case of
obviousness has been established from the combined teachings of Holy,
Hughes and SE, evidence of unexpected results found in TABLE 2 and
TABLE 1 of the specification at pages 31 and 27, respectively, are
adequate to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness. Initially,
and contrary to appellants' arguments, in submitting evidence to
establish unobvious results, it is appellants that have the burden of
indicating how the examples asserted to represent the claimed process
are considered to relate to the examples intended to represent prior
art, and particularly to indicate how the prior art examples
represent the closest prior art. Moreover, such evidence relied
upon must
also be reasonably commensurate in scope to the subject matter
claimed. Further, such evidence should establish that the
differences in results obtained are in fact unexpected to a person of
ordinary skill in the art and are of practical
significance. See Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007