Appeal No. 2001-0233
Application 08/668,640
No control experiments are evident in the experiment to negate the impact of
temperature.
Third, the data in the specification itself appears only to show that the surface
area and micropore volume present in the resulting ceramic product tends to vary
inversely as a function of the maximum pyrolysis temperature (Table 1, page 14); Table
2 (Page 16) appears to vary only the particulate material type, and is otherwise
unexplained; Table 3 (Page 17) also appears to vary only the particulate material type,
and is unexplained. Table 4 (page 18) does appear to demonstrate that 0.5 µm Al2O3
has a greater micropore volume than 1.6 micrometer AlN. The significance of this,
however, is unexplained. Is it the mean particle diameter which causes this effect, or
the change in material? Table 5 (page 18) is also not persuasive. The results are
wholly unexplained, and appear to be supporting a decomposition in ammonia. Thus,
the showing in the specification does not support a finding of criticality of the claimed
ranges.
Turning now to the patent cited in support of patentability of the instant
application, we find that it can hardly be said to be commensurate in scope with the
degree of patent protection sought. In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d
1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Dill, 604 F.2d 1356, 1361, 202 USPQ 805, 808
(CCPA 1979).
The Appellants point us to column 9, line 55 to column 10, line 34, and column
11, lines 5-43 of the ‘759 patent as showing the effect of particle size and ratio (Reply
Brief, page 2, lines 15-17). Examples 10-12 of the ‘759 patent mix treated NCP100
polysilazane and treated NCP-200 polysilazane, grinding them to <1 micron, 10
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007