Ex Parte Lee et al - Page 5

            Appeal No. 2007-1237                                                                             
            Application No. 10/813,367                                                                       

                   rates than the viscosity of the Example 4 composition (mixture of carbon                  
                   black and carbon nanotubes). The lower viscosity of Example 4 is                          
                   important to a more facile processing of the composition into a                           
                   semiconductor shield layer.  This lower viscosity is even more striking                   
                   when compared against the composition of Example 2 which contains                         
                   20 weight percent carbon nanotubes and 0 weight percent carbon black.                     
                   The viscosity of the composition of Example 2 is even greater across the                  
                   various shear rates than that of the composition of Example 1.                            
                         In addition, at page 20 [sic, 15], Table 2 of the specification, the                
                   volume resistivities of the compositions of Examples 1-4 are reported.                    
                   The Examiner will note that not only is the volume resistivity of the                     
                   composition of Example 4 comparable to that of the composition of                         
                   Example 1, but it is much more stable over various thermal cycles than                    
                   the volume resistivity of the Example 1 composition.                                      
            (Br. 10-11).                                                                                     
                   While Appellants argue that the working examples of their specification                   
            demonstrate synergistic properties, Appellants have failed to point to sufficient                
            evidence indicating that the results were considered to be unexpected to one of                  
            ordinary skill in the art.  “It is well settled that unexpected results must be                  
            established by factual evidence.  Mere argument or conclusory statements in the                  
            specification does not suffice.”  In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750, 34 USPQ2d 1684,                  
            1687 (Fed.Cir.1995) (quoting In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191,                   
            196 (Fed.Cir.1984)).  The question here, we emphasize, is a question of evidence                 
            and the burden is on the Appellants to show unexpected results.  In re Johnson,                  
            747 F.2d 1456, 1460, 223 USPQ 1260, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1984).                                       
                   The data presented in the specification does not include a comparison of a                
            composition comprising carbon particles and carbon fibers as suggested by                        
            Delphin.  The results presented merely compare compositions that comprise carbon                 
            nanotubes and carbon particles (Example 4) to compositions that only comprise                    


                                                      5                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013