Appeal No. 2006-0581
Application 09/997,082
particles (page 8 of principal brief, first paragraph). However,
appellants have not refuted the rationale set forth at page 8 of the
examiner’s answer. The examiner points to appellants’ definition of
“monolayer” in the present specification as optionally including “a
layer grown to a thicker depth that one particle if substantially
all of the surface has first been covered with a layer of abutting
particles having a depth of one particle” (page 3 of specification,
first paragraph). Since appellants have defined a monolayer as
essentially a uniform layer of no particular thickness, and Kosuda
expressly teaches that the electrophoretic coating process results
in a uniform coating, it is reasonable to conclude that the process
of Kosuda would necessarily result in a monolayer, at least to the
degree claimed. As pointed out by the examiner, appellants have not
demonstrated otherwise by way of argument or evidence.
Appellants cite specification data which demonstrates that
electrophoretic deposition produces a uniform layer, as opposed to
the non-uniform layer produced by simple immersion of the substrate
in the dispersion. However, appellants have not shouldered their
burden of establishing that the specification results would be
considered unexpected by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 900 F.2d 1091, 1099, 231 USPQ 375, 381 (Fed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007