Appeal No. 1998-0187 Application No. 08/247,518 occur over the entire claimed range. See In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). In this instance, the objective evidence of nonobviousness is solely directed to the unexpected results obtained by the manufacture of cups on a commercial scale. It is our view, however, that claim 8 is not limited to the production of cups on a commercial scale, but includes within its scope the manufacture of one or a small number of cups. We do not find and the appellant has not directed our attention to any evidence in the record establishing that the manufacture of a few cups by the process defined in claim 8 has any unexpected cost benefit over the manufacture of a like number of cups by the conventional process. For the foregoing reasons, the appellant’s evidence of unexpected cost benefits can be accorded little weight. As to the opinions in the above-noted declarations that5 cups made by the claimed process are superior in appearance, 5As with the assertion of unexpected cost benefits, the statements regarding unexpected improvements in the quality of the cups produced by the claimed process are unsupported by any factual data either in the specification or in the declarations comparing cups produced by the claimed process to cups produced by any prior art process. 15Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007