Appeal 2007-1931
Application 10/247,330
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we find that the Examiner's rejections are well-
founded and in accord with current patent jurisprudence. Accordingly, we
will sustain the Examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons expressed
in the Answer.
We consider first the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, description requirement. It is the Examiner's position that the
claimed lower limit for the BET surface area, 255 m2/g, does not have
original descriptive support in the present Specification. Appellants, on the
other hand, maintain that because the claimed CTAB value of 150 m2/g and
minimum BET/CTAB value of 1.7 is clearly disclosed in the Specification, a
simple multiplication of the minimum ratio value and the minimum CTAB
value results in the claimed minimum BET value of 255 m2/g. Appellants
direct attention to the Table on page 3 of the Specification for the CTAB
value of 150 m2/g and page 2, line 12 of the Specification for the minimum
BET/CTAB value of 1.7.
The flaw in Appellants' reasoning is that the Table at page 3 of the
Specification does not designate the value of 150 for the CTAB as a
minimum value, and significantly, the CTAB of 150 is associated with a
BET of 400, not the claimed minimum value of 255. Also, the BET/CTAB
ratio associated with a CTAB value of 150 is 2.67 not the minimum value
claimed on 1.7. Also, Appellants' table includes other CTAB values well
below 150. Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not find that Appellants' original specification conveys
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013