Appeal 207-1263
Application 10/480,198
The Examiner contends that Appellants’ comparative examples are
not considered representative of the dielectric ceramic of the prior art
references since these samples use different processing temperatures and
times than that taught by Fukui, Fujii, and Kojima (Answer 5-6).
Accordingly, we determine the issues presented from the record in
this appeal are as follows: (1) has the Examiner established that the
dielectric ceramics of the prior art references reasonably appear to be the
same or substantially the same as the claimed product?; and (2) if the
Examiner has established a prima facie case of anticipation/obviousness,
have Appellants’ comparative samples adequately rebutted this prima facie
case?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation and obviousness in view of the reference evidence, which prima
facie case has not been adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments and
evidence. Therefore, we AFFIRM all grounds of rejection presented in this
appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those
reasons set forth below.
OPINION
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
(1) Fukui, Fujii, and Kojima disclose dielectric ceramic compositions
including a perovskite phase of (Sr1-xCax)m(Ti1-yZry)O2, which further
contains rare earth elements, MnO, and other accessory or auxiliary phases
(Answer 3; Fukui, Abstract; col. 3, ll. 6-27; Fujii, Abstract; col. 2, l. 25-col.
3, l. 34; and Kojima, Abstract; col. 2, l. 30-64; and col. 3, ll. 38-60); and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013