Appeal No. 1999-0769 Page 9
Application No. 08/661,532
We are mindful, of course, of the examples furnished by
appellants in their specification. However, appellants base
no arguments on an allegation of unexpected results in their
brief or otherwise prove that their product is patentably
distinct from the product of Xue. Consequently, on this
record, we determine that the product of appealed claim 13 has
no characteristics that differentiate over the prior art
products taught and suggested by Xue so as to render that
claimed product unobvious.
Turning to claim 18, we determine that the evidence
adduced by the examiner, particularly Table II on page 2929 of
Xue , teaches a prior art electrode material product that may5
include (silicon) Si, carbon (C) and oxygen (O) in proportions
that substantially correspond with the product of that claim.
See appellants’ brief, page 6. While the working example 2 of
Table 2 of Xue may show an amount of carbon (y = 31.3) in the
product that exceeds the herein claimed formula upper limit of
5The ceramic product of the 20% silane example of Xue is
acknowledged by appellants (brief, page 6) to have a formula
that meets the formula recited in claim 18 with the exception
that the relative amount of C is an amount corresponding to y
= 31.3 whereas claim 18 requires that the maximum amount of C
is y = 31.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007