Appeal 2006-2931
Application 10/447,009
The discussion of Example 13 of Eknoian does not include an
analysis of the crystalline segments and/or the crystalline melting point of
the disclosed composition and how these properties relate to wet/dry tensile
strength (Br. 4-5).
Dr. Rabasco's Declaration filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 does not
provide a first-hand detailed showing as to how the Declarant has reached
the provided opinion as to a reproduction of Examples 11 and 14 of Eknoian
(Paragraph 7).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In addition to the principles of law discussed above, we add the
following:
Appellants must discuss or explain the data in the Specification and
why it is believed that the data supports the non-obviousness of the claimed
subject matter. The burden is on Appellants to establish why the
comparative data establishes unexpected results. See In re Klosak, 455 F.2d
1077, 1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA 1972).
The data relied upon by Appellants must be commensurate in scope
with the claimed invention. In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189,
197 USPQ 227, 230 (CCPA 1978).
ANALYSIS
We determine that the Examiner has established a reasonable belief
that the nonwoven woven product of Eknoian inherently possesses the
claimed characteristics by finding that the emulsion polymerization is
carried out at a pressure (700 to 1400 psi) that falls within the range
identified by the present specification for producing a polymer with
crystalline ethylene units. Appellants have not sufficiently rebutted the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013