Appeal No. 1999-2201
Application No. 08/704,063
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence.
C. The Comparative Data
In response to both rejections discussed above, appellants
submit that the comparative data in the specification “shows the
advantages of the instant compositions as claimed” in comparison
to the compositions of Kurita (Brief, pages 4-5) and Keryk
(Brief, pages 6-7). Appellants argue that Examples 43-46 and 48-
52 on pages 37-39 of the specification show advantageous results
over the compositions of Kurita while Examples 1 and 49 on pages
33 and 38-39, respectively, of the specification show
advantageous results over the compositions of Keryk (id.).
Once prima facie obviousness has been established and
appellants have submitted evidence of unexpected results, we must
reevaluate the evidence based on the totality of the record and
determine whether the preponderance of evidence weighs most
heavily for or against obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Having reviewed the showing of comparative data in the
specification, we agree with the examiner that appellants have
not met their burden of showing unexpected results. As noted by
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007