Appeal No. 2004-1287
Application 09/211,410 Page 7
is referred to in the brief, to support a conclusion of unexpected
advantages.
In particular, appellants have not established that the test
results presented represent unexpected results since metal powder
would be expected to be more conductive than metal oxides and metal
oxides would be expected to wear somewhat better than the metal,
which appears to be consistent with the reported results. Moreover,
the furnished test results are not reasonably commensurate in scope
with the here claimed invention. We note that representative claim
6 is not limited to the specific cross-linked polymer, the specific
amounts and sizes of aluminum powder, and the specific molding
method employed in making the test sample as outlined in the
referenced Examples 1 and 2 of the specification as evident by a
comparison of representative claim 6 with those Examples of
appellants’ specification. We note for example that appellants’
specification at page 7 illustrates that 55-85 weight percent oxide
fillers are used which corresponds with Visser (column 4, lines
9-11) whereas any amount of aluminum powder in an amount less than
30 weight percent (which essentially includes 0 weight percent) are
employed in appellants’ preferred embodiment. Thus, it is apparent
that appellants’ evidence is considerably more narrow in scope than
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007