Appeal 2006-3082
Application 10/372,669
In our opinion, the Examiner’s objection is reasonable because the
Specification does not reveal what the normal variations are when frictional
coefficient measurements are made on the same material. Appellants
acknowledge that the reported variation is “small,” but argue “[w]hile not
supported with a statistical analysis, such results show a statistically
significant difference” (Reply Br. 2). This response does not address the
Examiner’s concern with the data. Appellants do not explain the basis for
their assertion that the differences are “statistically significant,” when they
admit no statistical analysis was performed (Reply Br. 2).
SEM photomicrographs are provided by Appellants which purport to
show that the structure of powder of Comp. Ex. 1 (Figs. A1-A3) is different
from the structure of the powder of Ex. 1 (Figs. 1-2) (Horino Dec. ¶ 6).
Appellants have not stated that the procedure for processing the powders for
SEM analysis were the same for Ex. 1 and Comp. Ex. 1; consequently, it is
not clear on the record that the photomicrograph reflect a side-by-side
comparison.
In addition, Appellants refer (Horino Dec. ¶ 6) to differences that
appear in the figures (“spherically shaped particles” versus “sharp
projections, lumps, bumps, and dips”), but do not point to these structures in
the photomicrographs. Figs. A1-A3, as reproduced in the copy provided to
us, are of such poor quality that the so-called “lumps” and “bumps” can not
be clearly distinguished. Nonetheless, even had Appellants explicitly
pointed to the features of the two powders, the comparison would still be
deficient for the reasons already discussed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013