Appeal No. 2002-0928
Application 09/315,251
particular structure, that is, a nanostructure or one characterized
by "a high fraction of the material's atoms residing at grain or
particle boundaries." This is not shown by either Gitzhofer or
Ozaki. There is logic behind the examiner's argument that because
Gitzhofer discloses laying down a layer having a thickness of "a
few hundred microns" by successive laydown of individual droplets
it would have been expected that the droplets would be smaller than
the layer. Nonetheless, there is no evidence which supports the
examiner's ultimate conclusion that the droplets would be in the
nanometer range (three orders of magnitude smaller than a layer of
1 micron). Nothing in Gitzhofer suggests the layer are
nanostructured materials. The examiner's argument that appellants
have not established that "small" would not mean nanometer or even
that it would have been understood to mean micron misses the point:
it is the examiner's burden to establish by substantial evidence
the various elements required by appellants' claims. On this
record, the examiner has not carried her burden of persuasion.
Further, while we agree with the examiner that Ozaki is
evidence that ultrasound is a conventional expedient for preparing
dispersions of solids in liquids, appellants process is more than
simply the use of ultrasound for preparing dispersions of solids in
liquids. We reiterate that we have interpreted the claimed method
as requiring the dispersion of nanostructured materials in a liquid
using ultrasound to obtain a dispersion of nanostructured
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007