Appeal 2007-2916
Application 10/225,502
composition in view of the known properties of hBN taught by Kawasaki
(Answer 6).
Appellants essentially argue that Nakajimi and Kawasaki fail to teach
or suggest a "balanced blend" of alumina and hBN fillers; and, that since no
anisotropy is created or discussed in Nakajimi, there is no reason to use the
specially formed hBN crystals of Kawasaki (Br. 15). These arguments are
unpersuasive of Examiner error for the reasons given above relative to
McCullough/Kawaski. Specifically, Nakajimi teaches a "blended" boron
nitride/alumina volume ratio of 0.3~3 (FF 16). Optimizing a result effective
variable is prima facie obvious for reasons given above. Finally, the
disclosure of Kawasaki is not limited to its specially formed hBN crystals, as
pointed out by the Examiner.
Based on the foregoing, we will affirm the rejection of claims 1-3 and
10-12 under § 103(a) as obvious over Nakajimi in view of Kawasaki.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the decision of the Examiner to reject (i) claims 1-3, 7
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (lack of original descriptive
support) is REVERSED; (ii) claims 1-3 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over McCullough in view of Kawasaki is AFFIRMED; and, (iii)
claims 1, 3 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nakajima in
view Kawasaki is AFFIRMED .
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED IN-PART
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013