Appeal 2006-2557
Application 10/004,978
compounds in the polycarbonate compositions of Yamamoto would provide
additional flame retardency. Also, in the event one of ordinary skill in the
art experiences difficulty in obtaining a sufficient amount of Yamamoto’s
flame retardants, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had
a reasonable expectation of substituting the phosphorous flame retardants of
Fuhr for some of the required flame retardants of Yamamoto.
Appellant relies upon two Declarations by the present inventor as
evidence of unexpected results. However, we fully concur with the
Examiner that the limited Declaration evidence is hardly commensurate in
scope with the degree of protection sought by the appealed claims. In re
Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743, 218 USPQ 769, 778 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re
Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). The
Declarations show results for only two phosphorus compounds in
accordance with the present invention, namely, BPADP and RDP.
However, the general formula recited in claim 1 for the phosphoric ester
encompass a myriad of compounds wherein R1, R2, R3, and R4 are each
independently a C1 to C30 hydrocarbon, and X is a C1 to C3 divalent organic
group that may contain an oxygen atom and/or a nitrogen atom. Manifestly,
the terms “hydrocarbon” and “divalent organic group” are quite extensive in
scope, and we also note that m can be an integer from 0 to 5. In similar
fashion, the claimed alkoxy group-containing organopolysiloxane includes a
wide variety of siloxanes. Significantly, Appellant has not demonstrated
that the results attributed to two specific phosphorus compounds reasonably
translate to the broad genus of phosphoric esters and organopolysiloxanes
embraced by the appealed claims. It is well settled that the burden of
establishing unexpected results rests on the party asserting them. In re
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007