Appeal No. 1999-2161 Page 8
Application No.08/475,127
3. Declaration by Jurgen Groepper made of record in this
Application April 16, 1997 (“Groepper Declaration”).
(Paper No. 14).
4. Declaration of Leonard Palys (signed by Leonard Palys
and Peter Callais) made of record in this Application
on April 16, 1997 (“Palys Declaration” (Paper No. 14).
We have already addressed appellants’ comments on the
Groepper Declaration, item 3 (Paper No. 14), and appellants’
comments on the Supplemental Declaration, item 2 (Paper No. 10),
supra.
Our comments below address the data presented in the Palys
Declaration (Paper No. 14) listed as item 4, above, and on
appellants comments on the Joint Declaration (Paper No. 8),
listed as item 1, above. Our comments also address some of the
examples found in appellants’ specification that are discussed
by appellants in their brief.
A prima facie case of obviousness is rebuttable by proof
that the claimed invention possesses unexpectedly advantageous
or superior properties. In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 386-87,
137 USPQ 43, 47-48 (CCPA 1963). Upon our review, we find that
the comparison/data referred to by appellants is insufficient to
rebut the prima facie case of obviousness for the following
reasons.
In order to establish unexpected results for a claimed
invention, objective evidence of non-obviousness must be
commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is
offered to support. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035, 206
USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980); In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185,
1189, 197 USPQ 227, 230 (CCPA 1978); In re Lindner, 457 F.2d
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007