Appeal No. 2006-1506 Page 6
Application No. 10/858,576
factual basis and explanation regarding same, that is referred to
in the briefs, to support a conclusion of unexpected advantages.
In particular, appellants have not established that the test
results presented in the specification represent unexpected
results since the furnished test results are not reasonably
commensurate in scope with the here claimed invention. We note
that representative claim 1 is not limited to an adhesive product
that is made using the procedure outlined in Example 2 of the
specification, including an initial charge of polystyrene seed
latex and an adhesive formulation as specified in the tables
presented on page 9 of the specification, and further including
the specific reaction conditions and other materials set forth
in making the adhesive product of that Example as evident by a
comparison of representative claim 1 with specification Example
2. Thus, it is apparent that appellants’ evidence is
considerably more narrow in scope than representative appealed
claim 1, as maintained by the examiner in the answer (page 7).
See In re Dill, 604 F.2d 1356, 1361, 202 USPQ 805, 808 (CCPA
1979).
Nor have appellants satisfied their burden of explaining how
the results reported for Example 2 can be extrapolated therefrom
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007