Appeal 2006-2523
Application 10/206,496
Appellants contend Adachi does not teach the limitation “the total alcohol
content as C3-C7 alcohol is added comprise up to 75%” (Br. 18:25-29).
Appellants finally contend Adachi adds “alkaline aqueous solutions . . . to
activate the particle surfaces” and not water to initiate the reaction, citing
col. 6, ll. 10-15 (Br. 18:29-19:3).
With respect to dependent claim 2, Appellants contend that at col. 13,
ll. 30-36, Adachi discloses “adding a solution of aqueous ammonia and
propanol dropwise while stirring to a solution of titanium tetrabutoxide and
n-butanol” which is not encompassed by claim 1 (Br. 19:4-11).
Appellants make essentially the same arguments with respect to
independent claims 6, 13, and 19 (Br. 20:4-13, 21:22-32, and 22:19-29).
With respect to independent claim 7, which specifies that the initial solution
includes alcohols having two to seven carbon atoms, Appellants contend the
prior art methods “only . . . use ethanol” as described in the Background of
the Invention, and “the initial reaction solution . . . includes metal oxo-
hydroxides and phosphates” which are not disclosed by Adachi (id.
20:14-18).
Appellants contend Adachi teaches away from the claimed invention
because the reference discloses depositing “titanium oxide coating from a
metallic precursor onto a metal oxide particle using a sol-gel method” (Br.
24:7-12). Appellants further contend even though “a chemical, titanium
alkoxide, is common” to the claimed processes and those disclosed by
Adachi, there is no “motivation to combine the prior art LPP processes with
the sol-gel process” of Adachi (Br. 26:8-18). Appellants still further contend
any prima facie case is rebutted by the disclosure in Specification
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013