Appeal No. 1999-2506
Application No. 08/545,254
320oC which exceeds the minimum requirement of the claimed subject matter for a
polymerization temperature not lower than 120oC. See page 7, lines 1-6. Based upon the
above findings and analysis it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in
the art to have substituted a diarylsilanediyl bridging moiety for the dialkyl bridging moiety
since the evidence of record as disclosed by Palackal establishes that each bridging moiety in
the otherwise identical formula within the scope of the claimed subject matter may be utilized
in the polymerization of olefin monomers.
Accordingly, we conclude based on the totality of the record before us, that the
disclosure of Hasegawa in combination with Palackal is sufficient to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness. The burden accordingly shifts to appellants to overcome the presumption of
obviousness that has been created. Having reviewed the data present, we conclude that
appellants have not met their burden of showing unexpected results. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d
1077, 1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA 1972). It is not sufficient to assert that the results
obtained are unusual or unexpected. The burden of showing unexpected results rests on those
who assert them.
The appellants rely on an executed Rule 132 Declaration of record and argue that the
Declaration shows five runs conducted with a diphenylsilanediyl bridging moiety of the present
invent compared with five runs of Hasegawa directed to a diphenylmethylene bridging moiety
of Hasegawa. See Brief, page 9. We find however that Hasegawa neither exemplifies nor
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007