Appeal 2007-1118
Application 10/237,089
sustain the rejection of these claims for the reasons discussed above in
reference to claim 1.
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Appellants argue that the method
patentably defines over Umeno because Umeno fails to disclose or suggest
the use of SiOx and the method patentably defines over Sakashita because
Sakashita fails to disclose heating to the claimed 500-1200°C temperature
(Br. 17). We are not convinced. As pointed out by the Examiner, Umeno
describes heating to 700-1200°C when chemical vapor depositing carbon
onto the particles. When one was coating the particles of Sakashita with
carbon by CVD, one would use the temperatures suggested by Umeno or
would adjust the temperature through routine experimentation to obtain the
desired carbon coating.
With respect to claims 11 and 12, Appellants argue that Umeno and
Sakashita fail to disclose the use of a fluidized bed reactor, or a reactor
having a specified linear velocity as required by these claims (Br. 17). We
note that Umeno describes conducting the chemical vapor deposition “with
the particulate core kept in a fluidized state.” (Umeno, col. 6, ll. 10-12).
Determination of the velocity of the gas flow would have been within the
level of one of ordinary skill in the art. Cf. Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480
F.3d 1348, 1368, 82 USPQ2d 1321, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (discovery of
an optimum value of a variable in a known process is usually obvious.) and
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (“[I]t is
not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation.”).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013