Appeal No. 1996-2530
Application 08/246,324
Background
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal and reads as follows:
1. A process for producing at least one of
ceramic powders and metal powders comprising:
homogeneously incorporating at least one metal
cation into a polymeric foam, forming a metal
cation-containing foam cell structure;
calcining said metal cation-containing foam cell
structure at a calcination temperature and a time
required for complete removal of all organics and
formation of a crystal phase, producing at least one
of an oxide powder and a metal powder; and
recovering said powder.
The reference relied upon by the examiner is:
Wood et al. (Wood) 3,833,386 Sep. 3, 1974
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 11-13, 15-19, 27 and 28 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 over Wood.
Discussion
We have carefully considered the entire record and
reviewed the respective positions of the examiner and
appellants. For the following reasons, we reverse the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 over Wood because the
examiner has not made out a prima facie case of
obviousness.
As a preliminary matter, we note that appealed claim
1 is the only independent claim and is therefore
representative of the claims on appeal.
The examiner has the initial burden of establishing
a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007