Appeal 2006-0886
Application 10/151,093
N220, N326, or N351, carbon black materials having an iodine absorption
level within the claimed range of claims 2, 6, and 11 (Specification 7:22-24;
8:1-6).
Appellants identify Example 1 as showing unexpected results for the
range of 8-13 parts by weight silica (claims 8 and 11) as compared to
Example 9. Example 1 has 10 parts by weight silica while Example 9 has 15
parts by weight silica. We agree with the Examiner that the difference in
silane coupling agent prevents a meaningful comparison (Answer 6-7).
Appellants have not presented any evidence that the difference in
concentration is does not affect the results. Appellants argue that there is
nothing in the record that indicates that the amount of coupling agent used
has any measurable effect (Br. 11). Again, the burden is on Appellants to
establish unexpected results. We also note that while Example 1 has better
elongation at break, Example 9 actually has better heat build-up
characteristics and better elastic modulus. Contrary to the arguments of
Appellants (Br. 9), a higher index number for heat build-up characteristics is
desired (Specification 9:23-25).
Based on the totality of record, including due consideration of the
Appellant’s arguments, we determine that the preponderance of evidence
weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007