Appeal 2007-4227
Application 10/409,417
48. In the case of the deposition temperature and the heat treatment
temperature, the Examiner finds that the untaught parameter is a "cause-
effective variable," the optimization of which would have been obvious.
(Answer at 4.)
49. In the case of the crystal forms, the Examiner finds that it would have
been obvious to use monoclinic titania in Chopin's mixtures of crystals with
the expectation of successful results. (Answer at 4.)
50. Kutilek acknowledges the Examiner's findings of fact. (Br. at 4, third
paragraph.)
51. Kutilek repeats its argument that Chopin does not anticipate the
subject matter of claim 1, finding that "there is nothing in Chopin that
discloses or teaches, either implicitly or explicitly, the present invention
recited in claim 1 as further limited by claims 7, 8, 10–12, 15, 26 and 27."
(Br. at 4–5.)
52. Kutilek finds further that "there is no teaching of the heating
temperature, specific dopants and crystal structures as recited in claim 7, 8,
10–12, 15, 26 and 27." (Br. at 5, last paragraph.)
53. Kutilek concludes that "one of ordinary skill in the art would not be
led to the present invention from the teachings of Chopin." (Br. at 5, last
paragraph.)
54. Kutilek makes no other argument; in particular, Kutilek does not offer
any other explanation of why the Examiner's optimization of "cause-
effective" variables argument is reversible error.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013