Appeal No. 2006-0623
Application No. 10/181,859
showing that the claimed subject matter imparts unexpected
results.); In re Heyna, 360 F.2d 222, 228, 149 USPQ 692, 697
(CCPA 1966)(“It was incumbent upon appellants to submit clear and
convincing evidence to support their allegation of unexpected
property.”).
First, as correctly pointed out by the examiner (the Answer,
page 12), the appellant has not demonstrated that the showing in
the specification is commensurate in scope with the degree of
protection sought by the claims on appeal. See In re Kulling,
897 F.2d 1147, 1149-50, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743, 218 USPQ 769, 778 (Fed. Cir.
1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035-36, 206 USPQ 289,
295-96 (CCPA 1980). The appellant has not evinced that the vast
number of aminic compounds recited in the claims on appeal would
behave in the same manner as the two specific aminic compounds
containing phenyl and amine used in test oil formulations. In
other words, the appellant fails to show that the data relied
upon are indicative of the relative viscosities which would be
obtained when the materially different aminic compounds covered
by the claims on appeal are employed.
Second, as again pointed out by the examiner (Answer, page
5), the appellant has not demonstrated the alleged improvements
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007