Appeal No. 2005-1934 Page 4
Application No. 10/022,357
circumstance, it is reasonable to shift the burden to Appellants to show that the particular range
claimed is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results
relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37
(Fed. Cir. 1990).
Appellants argue that “the subject matter of pending claim 2 requires sintering at two
different temperatures, namely both sintering at 450°C to 550°C and at 600°C to 700°C. As
Beer, at best, only very broadly mentions a single oxide formation and adherence step at 400°C-
650°C, present claim 2 would not have been obvious over Beer for this reason alone.” (Brief, p.
6).
We cannot agree that Beer is limited to a teaching of only one oxide formation and
adherence step. As the Examiner points out, Example 6 describes a method in which two oxide
layers are formed. Particularly, as set forth in Example 6, a plate of titanium is provided with a
layer of metal oxide and then a further layer of ruthenium oxide (RuO2). The plate coated with
the first metal oxide layer is subject to the three heat treatments as in the preceding example (p.
3, ll. 106-108), a reference to Example 5. Example 5 describes drying at 105 °C, raising the
temperature to 210-250 °C for 12 hours, and then heating at 475-580 °C for 20-50 minutes (p. 3,
ll. 75-83). The last temperature range overlaps the claimed range of 450-550 °C. Example 6 of
Beer then indicates that the coated plate is further coated with ruthenium oxide “in accordance
with the present invention.” (p. 3, l. 125 to p. 4, l. 2), i.e., dipping the support or brushing it with
ruthenium chloride in hydrochloric acid and applying the three step heat treatment (see, e.g.,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007