Appeal 2007-1940
Application 10/362,942
The Examiner relies on the evidence in this reference:
Suzuki1 JP 07-272537 A Oct. 20, 1995
Appellants request review of the grounds of rejection of claims 21
through 36 and 38 through 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or,
in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Suzuki
(Answer 3; Br. 3).
Appellants argue the claims as a group (Br. in entirety). Thus, we
decide this appeal based on independent claims 21 and 23. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
The dispositive issue is whether the glass ceramic mass dielectric
compositions described by Suzuki which contain a silicon oxide at an SiO2
equivalent of 20 to 50 mol% and otherwise meet the ingredient limitations of
independent claims 21 and 23, prima facie anticipate and/or render obvious
the claimed compositions encompassed by these claims because Suzuki’s
compositions also meet the specified permittivity, quality, and Tf value
property limitations. Appellants submit Appellant Schiller’s Declaration
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.1322 (Schiller Declaration) with evidence bearing on the
relative properties of the claimed compositions and those described by
Suzuki, contending the evidence establishes that compositions
1 We consider and refer to the translation of Suzuki prepared for the USPTO
by the McElroy Translation Company (PTO 07-113 October 2006). We
additionally consider the patent document and the computer translation
thereof prepared by the Japanese Patent Office.
2 The Schiller Declaration was submitted with the Amendment filed
March 6, 2006. Appellants do not contend the evidence therein pertains to
unexpected results.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013