Appeal 2007-1940
Application 10/362,942
containing the amounts of SiO2 described by Suzuki do not satisfy the
claimed property limitations (Br., e.g., 4).
The Examiner finds the glass ceramic material compositions of
Suzuki’s Examples 3-7 fall within the claims (Answer 3). The Examiner
contends the Schiller Declaration does not accomplish Appellants’ purpose
because the evidence is not commensurate in scope with the claims which,
like the disclosure in the Specification, do not limit the amount of SiO2 in
the glass ceramic mass, and does not represent the teachings of Suzuki (id.
4). With respect to the latter, the Examiner finds the evidence includes CaO
and BaO that are not included in Suzuki’s Examples 3-7, which Examples
are not shown in the Schiller Declaration to have properties that fall outside
the claims (id. 4-6).
Appellants contend Suzuki does not disclose the claimed properties,
and the evidence in Declaration Table 1a shows that “once the SiO2 % goes
over about 12%,” the claimed property values are not necessarily met,
arguing the claimed properties must be met to reject the claims (Br. 3-4;
Reply Br. 2). Appellants contend Suzuki teaches that an amount of SiO2
below 20 mol% “makes vitrification difficult,” teaching away from using an
amount below that level (id. 4-5). Appellants contend SiO2 is disclosed in
the Specification to affect glassiness and not dielectric properties of the
claimed material, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would use an
amount of this material such that the claimed property limitations obtain (id.
5-6; Reply Br. 3-4).
Appellants contend the Schiller Declaration tests four compositions
containing 0, 6, 12, and 22 % SiO2, respectively, and shows only the
compositions containing 0% and 6% SiO2 meet the claimed property ranges,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013