Appeal 2007-1940
Application 10/362,942
and ZrO2 fall outside the range disclosed by Suzuki; and there is no
disclosure of SrO and BaO in the compositions described by Suzuki.
Indeed, in view of the SrO and BaO ingredients, the glass components of the
comparative compositions are more closely related to the glass component of
the substrate layers used in the multilayer wiring substrate by Suzuki (see
above p. 7). Thus, the compositions 1-4 of the Schiller Declaration are not
representative of the glass ceramic mass described by Suzuki and,
particularly, of Examples 1-10 in Suzuki’s Table 1.
Furthermore, we determine the glass ceramic material compositions 1-
4 of the Schiller Declaration find basis in appealed claim 21. However,
there is no ingredient in the glass component corresponding to an “oxide of
at least one pentavalent metal Me5+ selected from the group consisting of
vanadium, niobium and tantalum” specified in appealed claim 23.
We further note that the glass ceramic materials prepared with
compositions 1 and 2 possessed properties within the claimed ranges only
when baked at 820°C, which temperature is close to the bake temperature of
850°C of Suzuki’s Examples 1-10.
We recognize Appellants submitted the Schiller Declaration for the
purpose of establishing that a glass ceramic composition containing
ingredients falling within an appealed claim as well as an amount of SiO2
within the range taught by Suzuki would not possess the claimed properties,
in order to patentably distinguish over Suzuki. However, as the Examiner
argues, in order to do so, such evidence must establish a result
commensurate with the range of glass ceramic masses encompassed by the
claims and described by Suzuki. On this record, we are convinced that the
results reported for compositions 1-4 does not establish that the range of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013