Ex Parte Yagi et al - Page 6




               Appeal No. 2006-1872                                                                                                
               Application No. 09/769,376                                                                                          
               roughness and the single cited measurement of the support in Sugawa “refutes the Examiner’s                         
               assertion of inherency” as argued by Appellants (Brief, p. 13).  The Examiner’s assertion of                        
               inherency is based upon the use of the same epoxy resin in the same manner.  It is the similarities                 
               in the starting material and the processing that supports the reasonableness of the conclusion of                   
               inherency including the similarity in the Ra value for the support in the two processes.  Based on                  
               the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the free surface, i.e., the surface opposite the                    
               support, would have an Ra in the claimed range.  See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15                             
               USPQ2d 1655, 1657-58 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433-                          
               34 (CCPA 1977).                                                                                                     
                       In the Reply Brief, Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding that the epoxy resin is used                  
               in the same manner as Appellants’ epoxy resin (Reply Brief, p. 11).  According to Appellants,                       
               they describe particular characteristics “such as, for example, leveling agents (page 17, first full                
               paragraph), viscosity (page 18, first full paragraph), heating conditions and temperature                           
               fluctuations during curing (page 18, second full paragraph and page 21, second and third full                       
               paragraphs) that are different or omitted from Sugawa ‘518’s disclosure such that Sugawa ‘518                       
               would not necessarily produce a surface roughness as believed by the Examiner.”  (Reply Brief,                      
               p. 11).  At the hearing, Appellants’ representative conceded that there is no material difference                   
               between the leveling agents described at page 17 of the specification and the leveling agents                       
               described in Sugawa (Sugawa, col. 6, ll. 11-18).  That leaves the differences between the                           
               viscosity teachings, heating conditions and temperature fluctuations.  But Appellants’                              
               specification does not disclose the viscosity ranges, heating conditions, and temperature                           
               fluctuation ranges as necessary to obtain a surface roughness, Ra, of 0.8 nm or less, those                         


                                                                6                                                                  



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007