Ex Parte Nawata et al - Page 4

               Appeal Number: 2006-2391                                                                                           
               Application Number: 10/311,513                                                                                     

               materials, similar specific surface area, and similar water retention capacities                                   
               (Answer 4).  The Examiner also recognizes that Ishizaki does not disclose the                                      
               claimed swelling power however, based upon the above stated similar properties,                                    
               the Examiner asserts that the swelling property is inherent in the composition of                                  
               Ishizaki (Answer 4).                                                                                               
                      Appellants have not disputed the Examiner's determination that the resins of                                
               Ishizaki have similar materials, similar surface area, and similar water retention                                 
               capacity properties as the claimed invention.  Appellants also have not challenged                                 
               the Examiner's position regarding the swelling property.  Rather, Appellants argue                                 
               that the specific surface area of “no less than 0.050 m2/g” is not described by                                    
               Ishizaki (Br 4-5).  As noted above, Appellants are correct that the Examiner has                                   
               admitted that Ishizaki does not expressly disclose the specific surface area of “no                                
               less than 0.050 m2/g” limitation.  However, mere recitation of a property or                                       
               characteristic not disclosed by the prior art does not necessarily confer patentability                            
               to a composition or a method of using that composition.  See In re Skoner,                                         
               517 F.2d 947, 950, 186 USPQ 80, 82 (CCPA 1975).  Where the Examiner                                                
               establishes a reasonable belief that the property or characteristic recited in the                                 
               claims would have been inherent to the product or process, the burden of proof                                     
               shifts to Appellants to show that this characteristic or property is not possessed by                              
               the prior art.  See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA                                       
               1977); In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657-58 (Fed. Cir.                                          
               1990).  We determine that the Examiner has provided technical reasoning as to                                      
               why the composition of Ishizaki meets the presently claimed invention.                                             
               Specifically, the Examiner contends that Ishizaki describes compositions that                                      
               comprise similar materials, similar surface area, and similar water retention                                      
               capacities (Answer 4).  However, Appellants have failed to meet their burden to                                    

                                                                4                                                                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013