Appeal 2007-0127
Application 09/749,916
1 confinement, the confinement window and the corresponding process
2 window are increased” (Hubacek Declaration, page 6, ll. 1-3).
3 Assuming for argument’s sake that the underlying facts as alleged by
4 Mr. Hubacek are true, we still are faced with the fact that Mr. Hubacek has
5 not stated that these results are unexpected or surprising, or why they would
6 be so. Better is not necessarily unexpected or surprising. Accordingly, we
7 are unpersuaded by the Appellants’ evidence of unexpected results.
8 (f) Uwai describes the advantages of thicker electrodes
9 The Examiner has cited Uwai as evidence in support of the
10 determination that the results were expected. According to the Examiner,
11 Uwai shows that as a general principal a thicker electrode will have a
12 smaller temperature gradient. (Uwai, col. 4, lines 27-36). (Final Rejection,
13 p.21, ll. 1-5).
14 We also find that Uwai teaches an electrode plate should be thick
15 rather than thin from the standpoint of durability (Uwai, col. 2, ll. 62-63) and
16 that to keep the surface temperature uniform across the plate (ll. 52-53) thin
17 warpable sheets should be avoided.
18 (g) Appellants’ Arguments
19 The Appellants urge that despite their evidence, the Examiner “fails to
20 provide any evidence suggesting that the probability of cracking of an
21 electrode is reduced by making it 0.25 inch and thicker” (Br., p. 14, ll. 14-
22 16). The Appellants also urge that Uwai “does not suggest that the glassy
23 carbon electrodes can provide improved resistance to cracking” (Br., p. 14,
24 ll. 20-21).
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013