Appeal No. 1997-3884
Application No. 08/712,240
from which phosphorus or boron can be leached into the binder solution during slurry
making).
Appellants acknowledge that the examiner’s position is that the boron species
could leach out of a glass frit composition of Nishigaki if added to the Anderson’s slurry
formulation during slurry making. (Brief, page 13). Appellants’ position is that “the
present claims on appeal concern separate addition of boron or phosphorus species in free
form to the slurry and not introduction of these ionic species via glass leaching.” (Brief,
page 14).
We agree with appellants’ interpretation of their claims on appeal, quoted above,
but only with respect to claims 21 and 35. We find, however, that claim 15 encompasses
either embodiment of appellants’ invention described on page 5, beginning at line 16, of
the specification (summarized on pages 2-3 of this opinion). Claim 15 merely requires
that the slurry contain ionic species in their ionic form, not that such species be added to
the slurry in ionized form. See claim 15 in the attached Appendix.
We agree with the examiner’s comments bridging pages 6 and 7 of the Answer,
that ionic species of boron would result from adding the glass containing boron oxide of
Nishigaki, into the slurry of Anderson. We also agree with the examiner that there is
sufficient motivation for adding the glass containing boron oxide of Nishigaki to the
slurry of Anderson for the reasons mentioned by the examiner. (Answer pages 6 and 7).
Although appellants argue that Anderson and Nishigaki use different resin binders (Brief,
page 12), it remains an art recognized benefit, that using the glass containing boron oxide
of Nishigaki provides for a low temperature fired ceramic with a higher heating rate, thus
saving production costs and time, which is proper motivation to combine the teachings of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007