Appeal No. 2000-0132
Application No. 08/934,791
cellulose triphenyl carbamate beads recited in, e.g., claims
22 and 25. However, as indicated supra, we find that Hagel
teaches cellulose triphenyl carbamate particles (sieve fractions)
which of necessity includes those which are in the form of beads.
Thus, we determine that a showing of unexpected results is not
relevant in this situation because bead shapes are not the novel
aspect of the claimed invention. In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297,
1302, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Even if we were to determine that Hagel does not necessarily
teach the claimed bead shapes, our conclusion would not be
altered. We find that the declarants do not specify the size or
type of bead shape particles used in the comparative showing
provided in the declaration. Thus, it cannot be ascertained from
the comparative showing whether the alleged improvements are due
to the size of particles employed, the type of bead shapes
employed or any bead shapes as alleged and claimed. 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”). Moreover, as found by the examiner (Answer,
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007