Appeal 207-1263
Application 10/480,198
separately calcining the starting raw materials for the principal component
(1000-1300°C for 1-4 hours) from the calcination of the starting raw
materials for the auxiliary components (800 to 1200°C for 1-4 hours)
(Fujii, col. 5, ll. 1-2; col. 6, ll. 2-13; col. 8, ll. 45-59; col. 9, ll. 7-13; and
col. 10, ll. 14-20). Thus, we determine that the comparisons presented by
Appellants are not with the closest prior art. Furthermore, we determine
that the comparisons do not treat the materials in equal manner, i.e.,
Appellants’ disclosed process employs four hours of heating for the
calcination but is compared to only two hours of calcination when four
hours of calcination is within the scope of the prior art. Thus, we
determine that the comparative data is not truly comparative.
Finally, we determine that the comparative results have not been
shown to be commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter.
Appellants have only presented two comparisons at specific calcination
temperatures and times which produce two resulting ceramics with
unspecified amounts of a perovskite phase, an accessory phase, and a ratio
of two (Specification, Table 2 on page 25 and Table 5 on page 39). We
determine that these results are not commensurate with the scope of the
claims, which include ceramics with various amounts of perovskite and
accessory crystal phases as well as various ratios up to 5%. Accordingly,
Appellants have not met their burden of establishing that these results are
commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we affirm
all grounds of rejection presented in this appeal. The decision of the
Examiner is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013