Appeal No. 2004-1092 Page 8
Application No. 10/014,425
Chemistry to show that the claimed product is allegedly not only
patentably different (nonobvious) but superior to that of Jin.
Regarding the referred to Ullmann’s Encyclopedia excerpts,
the referred to pages relate to silicas that were prepared
pyrogenically or via precipitation as well as titanium dioxide
prepared via sulfate or chloride methods. Appellants have not
reasonably established how that relied upon evidence relating to
different materials is sufficient to show a patentable
distinction between the here claimed product and that of the
applied prior art.
As for the Hartmann et al. declaration, that declaration
furnishes a UV absorption comparison between dispersions of an
aluminum oxide/zirconium oxide coated titanium mixed oxide powder
prepared by a precipitation method and obtained from the Ishihara
Sangyo company with a dispersion of a pyrogenically produced
mixed titanium mixed oxide of a specified iron oxide content with
a 50 m2/g surface area presumably prepared according to the
present invention. Besides not being commensurate in scope with
the appealed claims, that showing does not even test the product
of the applied prior art. Moreover, the descriptions of the
comparative (prior art) mixed oxide in the declaration as well as
the inventive mixed oxide are somewhat vague. Thus, the test
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007