Appeal No. 2002-1284 7
Application No. 09/098,730
the comparison between AKP-20 and AKP-3000, we find little distinction in the fired
density, 3.97 for AKP-20 and 3.98 for AKP-3000. Furthermore, we find only minimal
distinctions between the initial particle size distribution which differs only by 0.1:m and the
final mean particle size distribution which differs by a substantially smaller amount,
0.02:m. Based upon our findings, we conclude that the distinctions between AKP-20 and
AKP-3000 are minimal and fail to reflect any significant distinction in porosity between
sintered fine alumina powders. Furthermore, it is duly noted that porosity is not directly
discussed in the Sumitomo publication.
With respect to the article on “Sumicorundum” discussed by the appellants in the
Brief on page 7 of the Brief, for which only a very partial and minimal translation has been
submitted, appellants essentially present only the conclusions reached in the article. In
particular, there is no disclosure of the particle size or particle size distribution utilized by
the authors in “Sumicorundum.” Accordingly, we are unable to determine the
quantification of the terminology of, “having a wide-spread particle distribution,” or having
“a sharp particle size distribution with less micro particles.” See partial translation of
“Development of Advanced Alumina ‘SUMICORUNDUM’,” page 1. Therefore, little, if
any weight can be accorded the conclusion reached therein.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, and
having evaluated the prima facie case of obviousness in view of appellants arguments and
evidence, we further conclude that the preponderance of evidence weighs in favor of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007