Appeal 2006-2329
Application 10/211,381
As evidence of unpatentability the Examiner relies upon the following
reference:
Ide EP 0 469 166 A1 Feb. 5, 1991
Claims 1, 3, and 5-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Ide. Claims 1, 3, and 5-12 also stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ide. (See Answer 2-3).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make
reference to the Answer mailed Oct. 31, 2005 for the Examiner's reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the Briefs (filed Aug. 12, 2005 and Apr.
21, 2006) for the Appellants' arguments thereagainst.
The initial inquiry in determining the propriety of the Examiner's
§§ 102 and 103 rejections is to correctly construe the scope of the claimed
subject matter. Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 1460 n.3,
43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In proceedings before
the USPTO, claims must be interpreted by giving the words the broadest
reasonable meaning in the ordinary uses taking into account the written
description found in the Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054,
44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Applying these principles, we note appealed claim 1 recites:
1. A carbon-phenol resin molding compound obtained by reacting a
phenol with an aldehyde in the presence of a catalyst, while mixing with a
carbon powder, wherein (a) a content of said carbon powder in the molding
compound is 75 wt% or more, (b) a content of nitrogen constituent in the
molding compound is 0.3 wt% or less, and (c) said catalyst is at least one
selected from the group consisting of tertiary amines, carbonates, hydroxides
and oxides of alkali metals or alkali earth metals.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007