Ex Parte Lee et al - Page 6

            Appeal No. 2007-1237                                                                             
            Application No. 10/813,367                                                                       

            carbon particles (Example 1).  In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392,                   
            21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991)(The “difference in results” must be                        
            established as being between the claimed subject matter and the closest prior art.).             
                   The data relied upon by Appellants is also not commensurate in scope with                 
            the claimed invention.  See In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189, 197 USPQ 227,                 
            230 (CCPA 1978) (AEstablishing that one (or a small number of) species gives                     
            unexpected results is inadequate proof, for 'it is the view of this court that objective         
            evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims                        
            which the evidence is offered to support.'.” (quoting In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791,                
            792, 171 USPQ 294, 294 (CCPA 1971)).  Appellants test only a few compositions,                   
            as exhibited in the tables of the specification.  However, the claims on appeal are              
            much broader.  The claimed subject matter encompassed all combinations of                        
            carbon particles and carbon nanotubes.  According to Appellants, the results                     
            achieved for the composition of Example 8 is unexpected; however, the results                    
            achieved for Example 7 (a composition comprising the combination of carbon                       
            nanotubes and carbon particles) are not superior in all categories (See Specification            
            16).1  Appellants have not demonstrated that the alleged results can be reasonably               
            extrapolated for all cables comprising (a) polyethylene, polypropylene or mixtures               
            thereof; (b) carbon nanotubes; and (c) a conductive carbon black.                                
                   Claims 2, 3, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                             
            unpatentable over Delphin et al. in view of Smalley et al. as applied to claim 1                 
            above, and further in view of Bums, Jr.  Appellants have also not presented                      

                                                                                                             
            1 We also recognize that the amount of polymer components and processing aid                     
            vary based upon the individual examples (See Table 1).  Thus, it cannot be said                  
            that the results obtained are due solely to the presence of a combination of carbon              
            particles and carbon nanotubes.                                                                  

                                                      6                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013