Appeal No. 1999-0310 4
Application No. 08/225,267
Volts for V(10, 0, 20) and between 0.07 and 0.10 volts for V(90, 0, 20). There is, however, no
explanation by the declarant why a change lowering the threshold voltage of at most 0.10
volts is significant, let alone establishes unusual or unexpected results.
Significantly, the appellants, in describing their invention, disclose that, “[t]he
threshold voltages V(10, 0, 20) achieved are generally # 1.8 volts, preferably # 1.6 volts and
particularly preferably in the range from 1.4 to 1.6 volts, or lower.” See Specification,
p. 10, lines 14-17. We, accordingly, conclude that the threshold voltage of Example 1,
representative of the prior art falls within the appellants’ most preferable threshold voltage
range. Furthermore, in the mixture examples present in the Specification, only Example A
teaches threshold voltages. The threshold voltages recorded therein are V(10, 0, 20) = 1.63
and V(90, 0, 20) = 2.58. These numbers within the scope of the claimed subject matter far
exceed any of the threshold voltages measured in any of the examples in the Declaration of
Plach.
Based upon the above findings and analysis, we conclude that the appellants’
assertion that they have obtained substantially improved threshold voltages is unsupported
by the evidence of record and in conflict with the teachings found in the Specification.
As to the Plach Declaration, we further conclude that the data present in the
Declaration are not commensurate in scope with the degree of protection sought by the
claimed subject matter. See In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743, 218 USPQ 769, 778-
79(Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792, 171 USPQ 294, 294 (CCPA
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007