Appeal 207-1263
Application 10/480,198
substantially the same as the claimed products. Additionally, as shown by
factual finding (2) listed above, we determine that Fukui, Fujii, and Kojima
teach that the amount of each element in the principal and accessory phases
is a result-effective variable, and thus optimization of these variables
would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the
specific amounts and properties of the resulting dielectric ceramic would
have been obvious in view of the reference teachings.
Appellants assert that unexpected results have been shown when
comparing the single step calcination process used in the making of the
prior art ceramic versus the two-step calcination employed in the process
of making the claimed ceramic product (Br. 8-9, 10-13; Reply Br. 1-3).
However, as discussed above, Appellants have not shown that this
comparison is with the closest prior art nor commensurate in scope with
the subject matter of the claims. Appellants’ comparison involves the
same starting materials in the same amounts, with one batch of materials
calcined only once at 1100°C for two hours while the other batch, in
accordance with Appellants’ teachings, was subjected to a two-step
calcination (750°C for two hours and then 1100°C for two hours). See the
Specification:22-30 and 37-42, and Br. 10.2 We determine that Appellants
have not shown that these comparisons were with the closest prior art. For
example, we determine that Fukui teaches calcination under conditions of a
rate of temperature rise of 200°C/hour to a holding temperature of 1200 to
1380°C for a time of two hours (col. 13, ll. 38-42), while Fujii teaches
2 The comparative samples 37 and 48 differ slightly from samples 11 and 16
in that sample 37 was subjected to a two-step calcination (800°C for two
hours followed by 1000°C for two hours) while sample 48 was once
calcined at 1000°C for two hours (Specification 38).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013