Appeal No.2003-0078 Page 9
Application No.09/257,066
Appellants have not furnished test results that are
reasonably commensurate in scope with the here claimed invention.
We note that representative claim 1 and separately argued claim
11 are not limited to a particular composition including the
particular betaines and other surfactants and amounts thereof as
prepared by the specific procedures outlined in the referenced
examples of the specification. Nor are those claims limited to
using diammonium phosphate or monoammonium phosphate in the
amounts employed in the examples. We note that the
representative claim 1 does not specify any particular amount of
surfactants, frost proofing agent and ammonium salt. Thus, it is
apparent that appellants’ evidence is considerably more narrow in
scope than the representative appealed claim 1 and separately
argued claim 11. See In re Dill, 604 F.2d 1356, 1361, 202 USPQ
805, 808 (CCPA 1979).
Moreover, appellants simply have not shown any examples
prepared for comparison as representing the closest prior art.
Hence, we are not satisfied that the evidence of record that is
offered demonstrates results that are truly unexpected and
commensurate in scope with the claims. Nor have appellants
satisfied their burden of explaining how the results reported in
those limited samples presented can be extrapolated therefrom so
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007