Appeal 2007- 3662
Application 09/997,604
Idota US 5,686,203 Nov. 11, 1997
The Examiner maintains the following rejections: 2
1. Claims 11-14, 16-21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over:
a. Okada in view of Zhong ‘597 and Watanabe;
b. Zhong ‘104 in view of Zhong ‘597 and Watanabe; and
c. Manev in view of Zhong ‘597 and Watanabe.
2. Claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the prior art of rejections
1b and 1c above, each further in view of Idota.
3. Claims 11-14, 16-21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 as
lacking enablement for the full scope of the claims.
II. DISCUSSION
Obviousness
With regard to all the obviousness rejections, the main issue on appeal
arising from the contentions of Appellants and the Examiner is: Do any one
of Okada, Zhong ‘104, or Manev teach or suggest primary particles “having
a substantially octahedral shape” and “including particles having at least one
side of each flat crystal face of length of 1 µm or more?”
For the reasons that follow, we answer in the affirmative.
With regard to the question at hand, Appellants do not argue any
claim apart from the others. We select claim 17 to represent the claims on
appeal in deciding the issue. Claim 17 requires heating to form “positive
2 The Examiner has withdrawn a rejection of claims 12 and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (Answer 2).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013