Appeal No. 1999-1180
Application No. 08/751,557
conversion rate." (Appeal brief, pages 10-11.) Specifically,
it is said that Examples 13 and 14, which describes a catalyst
containing Pd and V, should be compared against Example 15,
which describes a catalyst containing only Pd. We observe,
however, that the results disclosed for Examples 13 and 14 are
comparable, if not inferior, to the results disclosed for
Moore's catalyst. (Moore's Example 12.) Moreover, Examples 13
and 14 of the present specification are limited to a Pd/V
catalyst used under specific reaction conditions. By contrast,
appealed claims 1 and 6 are significantly broader. Thus, we
determine that the appellants' showing of unexpected results is
far from being commensurate in scope with the degree of patent
protection sought. In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14
USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)("[O]bjective evidence of
nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims.");
(quoting Lindner, 457 F.2d at 508, 173 USPQ at 358); In re Dill,
604 F.2d 1356, 1361, 202 USPQ 805, 808 (CCPA 1979)("The evidence
presented to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness must be
commensurate in scope with the claims to which it pertains.").
The appellants urge that Moore's Examples 23 and 24 should
be compared against Examples 1 and 4 of the present
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007