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
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007