Appeal No. 2000-0132
Application No. 08/934,791
While the showing is limited to cellulose triphenyl carbamate
particularly bonded to a particular carrier, the appealed claims
are not so limited. On this record, the appellants have not
demonstrated that the improvements obtained by using the
particular bonding technique and the particular carrier can be
extended to those sorbents produced by using the materially
different carriers and materially different bonding techniques
covered by the appealed claims.
We further observe that the appellants rely on a comparative
showing between separating agent 1c supposedly corresponding to
the ground cellulose triphenyl carbamate described in Hagel and
separating agents 1d and 2d corresponding to the substituted
cellulose triphenyl carbamate with or without a carrier recited
in, e.g., claims 27, 31, 48, 52, 54, 55 and 61. However, as
found by the examiner (Answer, page 21), we determine that the
showing is not reasonably commensurate in scope with the
protection sought by the appealed claims. Clemens, 622 F.2d at
1035, 206 USPQ at 296. While the showing is limited to cellulose
tri(3,5-dimethylphenyl carbamate) alone or cellulose tri(3,5-
dimethylphenyl carbamate) particularly bonded to a particular
carrier, the appealed claims are not so limited. Nevertheless,
the appellants have not demonstrated that a claimed substituted
20
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007