Appeal No. 1998-0847
Application No. 08/483,762
Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219
(CCPA 1980). Furthermore, the weight of the compounds used in
the Examples in the specification are not commensurate in
scope with the unlimited weight ratios included within the
scope of claim 1 on appeal (see the Answer, page 10).
Secondly, all variables except the one sought to be shown
superior are not fixed, thus the cause and effect is lost.
See In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 439, 146 USPQ 479, 483 (CCPA
1965). The amounts of each component in Examples I and II of
the invention differ from the amounts used in Comparative
Example 1 and thus the variance in squeak cannot be attributed
only to the difference in compounds in the charge transport
layer (compare Comparative Example I on pages 10-11 of the
specification with Examples I and II on page 12 of the
specification). Third, the comparison is not with the closest
prior art. See In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179, 201 USPQ
67, 70 (CCPA 1979). The primary reference to Pai includes
Examples where only the diamine compound is in the transport
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007