Appeal No. 2006-1218
Application No. 10/601,884
sintering aid.”2 Moreover, the “Evidence Appendix” in the
corrected brief filed August 17, 2005 indicates that no evidence
is provided.
We find that the Examiner’s rejection-exposition and his
rebuttal of Appellants’ sole argument have set forth the
findings required to support a prima facie case of unpatent-
ability based on inherency. In the Examiner’s answer and final
rejection, the Examiner relies on similarities between Sellers’
product and the claimed product. The Examiner finds that
Sellers, like Appellants, teaches a magnesia-alumina spinel
product having high transparency for a wide range of
wavelengths. In fact, Appellants’ claimed wavelength range of
0.3-5.5 microns and transparency in excess of 50% for a
thickness of 1 mm fully encompasses the wavelength and
transparency ranges disclosed by Sellers (column 4, lines 1-8).
In response to the Appellants’ afore-noted argument, the
Examiner states that Sellers teaches a two-step heating process
wherein during the first phase of the heating process the LiF
sintering aid is retained as Appellants have observed in their
corrected appeal brief. In the second stage, however, the
spinel product is heated to between 1300°C to 1600°C for a time
2 Appellants submitted a declaration on April 20, 2005, which was denied entry
by the Examiner. As such, the declaration is not of record and is not before
the Board.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007