Appeal No. 2001-2470 Page 7
Application No. 08/890,134
Table 1 of the specification, where appellants’ examples
(adhesive formulations B, C, M, N, Q, R, S and T) having larger
aromatic endblocks (molecular weights greater than 14,700) and
high levels of midblock compatible resin and oil (at least 2.5:1)
exhibit better properties than adhesive composition A prepared
with smaller aromatic endblocks (molecular weight of
11,400)(Brief, page 5).
Appellants’ comparative data is not persuasive of non-
obviousness. As noted by the examiner (Answer, page 8), Puletti
clearly discloses and prefers block copolymers where the
endblocks have molecular weights greater than 15,000 (see col. 2,
ll. 32-35). The examiner also notes that Puletti discloses and
exemplifies block copolymers which are the same as appellants’
preferred block copolymers (e.g., Kraton G1650; see the Answer,
page 8; Puletti, col. 3, ll. 13-15; and Tables 1-3 on cols. 9-
10). To be effective, a comparison must show unexpected results
over the closest prior art. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1469, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellants have not
established that copolymers having endblocks of molecular weight
11,400 constitute the closest prior art.2 Therefore we determine
that appellants’ comparative showing has not been made with the
closest prior art. Furthermore, such a showing of unexpected
2Actually it appears that formulation A in Table 1 contains a copolymer with aromatic
endblocks of 11,100 molecular weight (see footnote 14 on page 24 of the specification).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007