Appeal No. 95-3869
Application 08/037,301
1-6 as compared to the comparative examples as well as a
substantial increase in pore volume for Examples 1-6 as compared
to comparative examples.
The examiner makes three points in his analysis of the
comparative results. First, the examiner contends that "the
comparative examples do not specifically disclose the amount of
carbon black." We disagree. Example 1 sets forth the coating
procedure that starts with 30 g. of carbon black. All of the
following examples, including Examples 2-6 and comparative
Examples 1 and 2, indicate that the procedure of Example 1 was
followed with certain indicated exceptions. Thus, we believe
30 g. of carbon black are used in all of the examples including
the comparative examples, and that the application fairly
discloses that 30 g. of carbon black are used in comparative
examples 1 and 2.
Secondly, the examiner urges that the comparative examples
recite a heat treating temperature considerably higher than that
of the examples of the appellants' invention. Again, we disagree
with the examiner's position. Heat treating of the powdered
coating composition is a claimed feature of the appealed claims,
and the examples according to the claimed invention, i.e.,
Examples 1-6, include a heat treating of the powder coating
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007