Appeal No. 2005-2445
Application No. 10/245,663
(Table 1: Examples 10-11).
With regard to the Samuels Declaration which has been
submitted by the appellants, an alleged showing of criticality
cannot overcome a rejection based on an anticipatory reference.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the question at hand was one
of obviousness, we are of the opinion that the Samuels
Declaration is unpersuasive since the data presented is
insufficient to establish that unexpected results are obtained
when alkali metal concentration is limited to the claimed range.
Reporting results obtained from a comparative specimen having a
potassium concentration (500 ppm) well outside the claimed range
says nothing about potassium concentration values closer to the
claimed range of 10-200 ppm.
Appellants' primary argument (in attempting to distinguish
the claimed invention from that of Waggoner) is that Waggoner
makes no mention of using the disclosed LCP composition to make
an “ovenware” part as claimed. We find this argument
unconvincing since we interpret the term “ovenware” as describing
a property or function rather than a particular article or
structure.
We recognize that the term “ovenware” must be given due
weight even though it is of a functional nature. In doing so, we
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007