Appeal No. 1996-2930
Application 08/301,784
optimizing the conditions in the JP ‘465 process would produce
particles having the optimum size for this use. However,
appellants’ particles are disclosed as being useful as a raw
material for ceramics and as a pigment for paint
(specification, page 1, lines 3-6). The examiner has not
explained, and it is not apparent, why optimizing the particle
size in the JP ‘465 process for a different purpose than that
of appellants would produce particles having the size recited
in appellants’ claim 1.
The examiner argues (answer, page 6) that the end points
of appellants’ ranges include a temperature of 350EC and a
pressure of 200 kg/cm which nearly overlap with the end2
points of the JP ‘465 ranges, i.e., greater than 350EC and
greater than 200 kg/cm (page 2). The examiner, however, has2
not explained, and it is not apparent, why JP ‘465 would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
hydrothermal treatment of 1F or smaller particles at that
combination of temperature and pressure.
For the above reasons the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness. We therefore reverse the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007