Appeal No. 2003-0024
Application No. 09/748,948
§ 1.192 (c)(7) and (8) (2001). See In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d
1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“if the brief fails to meet either requirement, the Board is
free to select a single claim from each group of claims subject to a common ground of
rejection as representative of all claims in that group and to decide the appeal of that
rejection based solely on the selected representative claim”).
The Examiner has concluded that the combined teachings of Baik and Motoki
renders the invention of claim 2 prima facie obvious. (Final Rejection, pp. 2 to 4).
Appellants argued that the rejection is improper because the teaching attributed to Motoki
are inaccurate. (Brief, p 5). Appellants argue that Motoki “fails to disclose or suggest the
use of a gaseous dopant in a liquid phase (e.g. while agitating the fumed silica in water, as
recited in step (b) of instant claim 2).” (Brief, p. 5).
We do not agree. A reference is available for all that it teaches to a person of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Inland Steel Co., 60 USPQ2d 1396, 1401, 1402 (CA FC
2001); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[A]
prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).
In the present case, claim 6 of Motoki discloses the use of dopant in gaseous form is
appropriate. Appellants also acknowledge that “it is known in the art to introduce a
gaseous dopant during a sintering process.” (Brief, p. 5). Motoki discloses, column 2,
that “[a] dopant is included by adding the dopant to the hydrolyzed solution of silicon
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007