Appeal No. 2005-1529
Application No. 10/385,314
Rehearing, should be changed as follows:
The second Figure at page 7 of the declaration
shows that hydrolytic stability gradually [increases
(weight loss gradually decreases)] as the total acid
content of a given composition decreases from 1.6 and[]
04. [Footnote omitted.]
As also acknowledged by the appellants (the Request for
Rehearing, page 3), BPA-DP3 results do not support the data point
at an acid content of 3.25. To the extent they support the data
point of an acid content of 3.2, the appellants have not
demonstrated that they are reliable. See the Brief, Reply Brief
and Request for Rehearing in their entirety. The appellants have
acknowledged that even “[t]he datum for BPA-DP1 was omitted
because of the anomalously low starting value for Mw.” See the
Decision, page 13. The appellants have not explained why BPA-
DP3, unlike BPA-DP1, is reliable when BPA-DP3, like BPA-DP1,
results in “the anomalously low starting value for Mw.” See the
Brief, Reply Brief and Request for Rehearing in their entirety.
As indicated at pages 14 and 15 of our Decision, the appellants
simply have not carried their burden of showing unexpected
results.
Moreover, contrary to the appellants’ arguments at page 2 of
the Request for Rehearing, the appellants have not demonstrated
that the showing relied upon by the appellants is commensurate in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007