Appeal No. 2000-1868
Application No. 08/730,217
According to appellants, the invention is directed to a
process for producing alpha alumina powder having a regulated
particle size, particle shape, a narrow particle size
distribution and a low halogen content (Brief, pages 2-7). A
copy of illustrative independent claim 1 is attached as an
Appendix to this decision.
In addition to using applications S.N. 08/606,679, S.N.
08/907,058, and S.N. 08/922,478 as the basis for obviousness-type
double patenting rejections, the examiner relies upon the
following references as evidence of obviousness:
Hamner et al. (Hamner) 3,961,036 Jun. 01, 1976
Andrews et al. (Andrews) 4,548,795 Oct. 22, 1985
Cambridge et al. (Cambridge) 4,634,581 Jan. 06, 1987
Misra 4,822,592 Apr. 18, 1989
Sucech et al. (Sucech) 5,149,520 Sep. 22, 1992
Lindsay et al. (Lindsay) 678,220 Jan. 14, 1964
(Canadian Patent)
Yamada et al. (JP ‘825) 60-131825 Jul. 13, 1985
(published Japanese Kokai application)2
The following rejections are before us in this appeal:
(1) the claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over JP ‘825 or Misra or Hamner or
2 We rely upon a full English translation of this document, now made of
record.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007