Appeal No. 2001-0241
Application No. 08/997,373
the art, appellants have not established that the specification
results are reasonably commensurate in scope with the degree of
protection sought by the appealed claims. In re Grasselli,
713 F.2d 731, 743, 218 USPQ 769, 778 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re
Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). The
examiner's criticism of the non-commensurate nature of the data
is well-founded inasmuch as the specification presents only one
composition which corresponds to the claimed phosphate-containing
unsaturated monomer. The specification, at page 43, identifies
the phosphate-containing compound in accordance with the
invention as PM-2, which is a specific mixture of two unsaturated
phosphate-containing compounds. On the other hand, claim 1, with
which all the appealed claims stand or fall, broadly embraces any
ethylenically unsaturated bond-containing monomer (A) which
contains a phosphate compound having at least one (meth)acryloyl
group. Simply stated, appellants' single mixture of two
particular phosphate-containing unsaturated monomers hardly
establishes that the extensive class of compounds within the
scope of claim 1 produces superior results which correspond to
the specification results. In re Landgraff, 436 F.2d 1046, 1050,
168 USPQ 595, 597 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly, it is our judgment
that appellants' evidence of nonobviousness is not of sufficient
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007