Appeal No. 2002-0701
Application 09/201,269
The appellant argues that the appellant claims inks in which
the copolymers are in solution (reply brief, page 18). The
appellant’s claim 23, however, does not require that the printing
ink composition is in solution form.
The appellant argues that the second Gelarden declaration
and the Oberski declaration (both filed December 12, 2000, paper
no. 12) show that the claimed invention produces unexpected
results (brief, page 25). For the following reasons, we are not
persuaded by this argument.
First, the appellant has not established that the
relied-upon evidence provides 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 appellant has not identified what the appellant
considers to be the closest prior art and compared the claimed
invention to that prior art, or explained why the relied-upon
comparative example is closer than the closest prior art to the
claimed invention.
Second, it is not enough for the appellant to show that the
results for the appellant’s invention and the comparative
examples differ. The difference must be shown to be an
19
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007