Ex Parte Tzou et al - Page 6


                Appeal No.  2007-1111                                                  Page 6                
                Application No.  10/126,804                                                                  
                aluminum flake into a container to enhance its rigidity would not also provide the           
                container with the property of being “substantially opaque to the transmission of            
                light in the range of about 400 nanometer to about 600 nanometers.”3  As                     
                discussed above, the examiner finds (Answer, page 5) that “metal flake filler is             
                almost as preferable as carbon black in providing light shielding to a container.”           
                In our opinion, the incorporation of aluminum flake into a container to enhance its          
                rigidity would provide the container with the property of being “substantially               
                opaque to the transmission of light in the range of about 400 nanometer to about             
                600 nanometers.”  Accordingly, we are not persuaded by appellants’ assertion to              
                the contrary.                                                                                
                      Appellants also assert that their claimed invention provides unexpected                
                advantages not recognized in the prior art.  Brief, pages 9-10.  According to                
                appellants “containers that comprise a polymer and metallic particles dispersed              
                therein provide an unexpected advantage when used with certain photocurable                  
                materials such as dental materials containing camphorquinone (‘CPQ’).”  Brief,               
                page 9.  As claim 1 is not limited to a container containing CPQ we find that                
                appellants’ assertion is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.4              
                In addition, appellants assert that their specification demonstrates that of the             
                three containers described therein only two “exhibited excellent color                       

                                                                                                             
                3 We note that appellants’ specification fails to disclose what is intended by the term “substantially
                opaque.”                                                                                     
                4 In order to establish unexpected results for a claimed invention, objective evidence of non-
                obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to   
                support. In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189, 197 USPQ 227, 230 (CCPA 1978); In re Lindner,
                59 CCPA 920, 923, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (1972); In re Tiffin, 58 CCPA 1420,   
                1421, 448 F.2d 791, 792, 171 USPQ 294 (1971).                                                




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013