Appeal No. 2005-2510 Page 8
Application No. 10/122,049
closest prior art in that Smith discloses compounds that are
closer than the tested compounds to the claimed potassium
perfluorobutane sulfonate, such as potassium perfluoroethane
sulfonate and sodium perfluorobutane sulfonate at column 3, lines
19-25. Also, see pages 5 and 6 of the answer.
Also, given the unspecified additives present in the tested
fluids and the amounts of the triaryl phosphates, trialkyl
phosphates and VI improver in the tested fluids as shown in Table
2 of the specification, the comparison attempted by appellants is
not fair in that there were a number of variables that were
unfixed in that comparison rendering that reported comparison
inconclusive with respect to establishing a difference in leakage
rates based on a difference in the erosion resistance agent
employed in the fluid. In other words, the cause-and-effect
relationship which appellants desire to show is lost in a welter
of unfixed variables. See In re Heyna, 360 F.2d 222, 228, 149
USPQ 692, 697 (CCPA 1966); In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 439,
146 USPQ 479, 483 (CCPA 1965).
Hence, we are not satisfied that the evidence of record that
is offered for comparison, as discussed in the brief,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007