Appeal No. 1998-0558
Application No. 08/564,942
Landgraf 436 F.2d 1046, 1050, 168 USPQ 595, 597 (CCPA 1971).
Also, and most significantly, it is not clear from the
declaration that the example offered for comparison is fairly
representative of activation and regeneration processes
disclosed by Yamasaki. For instance, EXAMPLE 2 of Yamasaki
reduces the catalyst in a stream of hydrogen at 350°C and
atmospheric pressure, whereas appellant
claims a hydrogen reduction at 340°C and atmospheric pressure.
While page 4 of the declaration states that "[t]he fourth case
is a balance made from the data given for the Yamasaki
patent", it is not clear that the declaration presents a
comparison with the
closest prior art which entails a hydrogen reduction of the
catalyst at 350°C under atmospheric pressure. Also, appellant
has not provided convincing evidence that the 2.63 percent
xylene loss exemplified by Yamasaki at TABLE 1 is invalid.
Furthermore, appellant has not explained in the declaration
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007