Appeal No. 1999-2119
Application No. 08/815,410
From our perspective, the principal and fatal deficiency of
this declaration evidence constitutes its extremely narrow scope
relative to appealed independent claim 6. For example, the
resist material tested in the declaration included only 4-t-
butoxyphenyl substituted sulfonium salt whereas claim 6
encompasses an exceptionally large number of onium salts having
widely varying substituents. The extreme variation in the
chemical structures of such salts reasonably supports the
proposition that these salts also possess widely varying
properties. Similarly, the declaration comparison involved only
one disulfone, namely, diphenylsulfone whereas the disulfones of
Schwalm ‘265 include a huge number and variety of compounds.
It is apparent that the declaration evidence under
consideration cannot be regarded as representing the here claimed
resist materials including the onium salts of appealed claim 6 as
a class or as representing the disulfone compounds of Schwalm
‘265 as a class. Compare, for example, In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442,
445-46, 169 USPQ 423, 426 (CCPA 1971). For all we know, the
declaration results are atypical, and the properties of other
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007