Appeal No. 1999-1180 Application No. 08/751,557 The appellants allege that a comparison of Examples 13 and 14 of the present specification with Moore's examples reveals that the invention recited in appealed claim 1 provides "markedly improved" selectivities. (Appeal brief, pages 9-10.) We are not persuaded by this analysis. As pointed out by the appellants themselves (id. at page 10), the conditions (e.g., the amounts and flow rates of the catalysts) used in Moore's examples differ significantly from those of the examples described in the present specification. Hence, the examples of Moore are not reasonably comparable to the examples of the present specification for the purpose of determining whether the incorporation of an additional metal as recited in the appealed claims imparts unexpected results. In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 439, 146 USPQ 479, 483 (CCPA 1965)("While we do not intend to slight the alleged improvements, we do not feel it an unreasonable burden on appellants to require comparative examples relied on for non-obviousness to be truly comparative. The cause and effect sought to be proven is lost here in the welter of unfixed variables."). The appellants also argue that Examples 13 through 15 of the present specification provide evidence of "improved 10Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007