Appeal 2007-0413
Application 10/722,769
agglomeration of the particles, and the preferred particle size range for
Yano’s dispersed particles corresponds to Appellants’ particle size, we find
no factual basis for concluding that the claimed slurry of non-agglomerated
multi-component particles patentably distinguishes over the dispersion of
aggregated multi-component particles of Yano. As pointed out by the
Examiner, Figures 2 and 8 of Yano depict a dispersion of non-agglomerated
aggregate particles. Furthermore, the appealed claims do not define the
degree of minimal agglomeration that qualifies as “non-agglomerated.” In
our view, it is reasonable to conclude that the slurries of both Appellants and
Yano experience some low-level of agglomeration, and Appellants have
presented no objective evidence which establishes that slurries within the
scope of the appealed claims are in some way different than the dispersed
slurries of Yano with respect to the level of agglomeration.
As for the separately argued particle size ranges recited in claims 16-
20, the Examiner appropriately cites col. 9, ll. 6-9 of Yano.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the inference of obviousness established by Yano.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s decision
rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013