Appeal No. 2006-1866
Application No. 10/639,537
Appellants maintain that the present claims specifically
require that the dopants of Formula (I) comprise ruthenium
whereas the dopants of Bell may or may not comprise ruthenium.
However, as explained by the examiner, Bell expressly discloses
that the dopant preferably comprises a transition metal selected
from Group 8 of the periodic table, and specifically exemplifies
many ruthenium-containing dopants in the table bridging columns
4 and 5 (see also column 4, lines 8-11). As such, we find that
Bell describes a first dopant comprising ruthenium within the
meaning of § 102.
Regarding the § 103 rejections of the appealed claims,
appellants rely upon specification evidence of unexpected
results to rebut any prima facie case of obviousness (see the
principal brief at page 6, second paragraph, and pages 7-9). We
have searched the Examiner's Answer in vain, however, for any
discussion of the evidence argued by appellants. Hence, the
§ 103 rejections are not ripe for decision by the Board.
Accordingly, this application is remanded to the examiner to
respond to appellants' argument based upon specification data.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007