Appeal No. 1999-1832
Application No. 08/474,233
process. Hence, the processes recited in the appellants’
claims 14 and 20 would have been prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art over these references.
The appellants assert that “[n]either Mao nor Ishimaru,
individually or in combination, teach, disclose or suggest the
combination of a particular class of organosilicon compounds with
a specific catalyst component” (brief, page 5). The appellants,
however, provide no reasoning as to why the claimed invention
would not have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art over the applied references.
The appellants argue that the data in their specification
show that their process produces unexpectedly superior control of
xylene solubles and crystallinity (brief, pages 6-8). For the
following reasons, the evidence relied upon by the appellants is
not effective for overcoming the prima facie case of obviousness.
First, the appellants’ showing of unexpected results does
not provide a comparison of the claimed invention with the
closest prior art. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d
388, 392, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re De Blauwe,
736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007