Appeal No. 2006-1421
Application No. 10/434,397
461, 463 (CCPA 1976) and In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 873-74,
143 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1964). This burden has not been carried
on the record before us.
The only dependent claim subject matter separately argued
by the appellants involves the claim 2 requirement that the
hydrolysable compound of parent independent claim 1 be a silicon
compound. Specifically, the appellants point out that the
hydrolysable compound of Lefebvre's Sample B is a titanate and
argue that "[i]t is not within the teachings of Lefebvre to
replace the titanium in a non-functional example . . . with a
silicon compound" (replacement Brief, page 16). As correctly
explained by the examiner and not contested by the appellants,
Lefebvre expressly teaches the use of silicon as well as
titanium based compounds for coating metal particles (e.g., see
the last paragraph in column 3 and the first full paragraph in
column 5). For this reason and especially because the
appellants have mischaracterized Lefebvre's Sample B as a
nonfunctional embodiment, we perceive no merit or even technical
accuracy in this argument.
In light of the circumstances recounted above, it is our
determination that the examiner has established a prima facie
case of anticipation which the appellants have failed to
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007