Appeal 2007-1388
Application 10/431,346
The latter point is significant in that the Examiner does not present a
conversion of the mole percent ranges for the glass constituents disclosed by
Hormadaly into a weight percent range for a proper comparison with the
claimed amount of titanium dioxide in the Answer. While we recognize that
conversions into weight percent ranges of the glass constituents for a few of
the Examples of Hormadaly are presented in Table 3 of Appellants’
Specification, the Examiner does not rely on this Specification Table in the
Final Office Action or the Answer. Consequently, Appellants do not
specifically address this Table in the Brief in responding to the Examiner’s
rejections of their claims.
This is important because the Examiner has not favored the appeal
record with an analysis of the Table 3 data from Appellants’ Specification
and whether that Table reflects the closest Examples and disclosure of
Hormadaly relative to the glass compositions being used in the claimed
method. In this regard, the modified Example JH9A of Specification Table
3 may suggest that at least a 3.26 weight percent amount of titanium dioxide
would have been within the grasp of an ordinarily skilled artisan from the
teachings of Hormadaly alone. Nor has the Examiner specifically addressed
the somewhat differing limitations of Appellants’ independent claim 7 in the
rejection. A portion of the Examiner’s rejoinder (Answer 6) appears to be
directed to appealed claim 7 but does not make up for the lack of treatment
of this claim in the rejection itself. In this regard, the Examiner does not
address or make any use of Specification Table 4 wherein B2T3 or
orthorhombic bismuth titanate (a non-silicate crystal) is shown as apparently
being formed when using a glass composition corresponding to the
disclosure of Hormadaly.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013