Appeal No. 2000-0019
Application 08/977,451
The Appellants’ arguments do not point us to any particular place in the
specification where these beneficial and unexpected results may be found. Instead,
without citation they discuss the failures of Coleman and state that the Appellants’
untreated microspheres do not suffer from excessive breakage even when incorporated
into a polyolefin composition having a melt flow rate of 10 grams/10 min (Appeal Brief,
page 13).
Initially, we note that this single data point is not commensurate in scope with the
claims (which recite a Melt Flow Rate of from 2 to 150 g/10 min).
Secondly, the specification states: “From the density values shown in Table 1,
one can conclude that the majority of the glass spheres did not break” (Specification,
Page 22, lines 12-13). One of the purported drawbacks of Coleman is that “a
substantial proportion” of the microspheres were broken when untreated (Coleman,
page 2, lines 29-30, and Compositions A and D). We have no way of comparing the
“substantial proportion” of Coleman with the “majority” of the instant specification, and
therefore find that the Appellants have not met the burden of establishing the
significance of these results to one having ordinary skill in the art.
We have additionally reviewed the examples i n the Specification, page 20, line
3 – page 26, line 2 to see if any additional significance could be gleaned from the
comparative examples. We are unable to do so, as we have been provided with no
guidance as to why the oxidation induction time results are unexpected when compared
to the closest prior art.
We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007