Appeal 2006-3259
Application 09/785,188
of Block’s teachings are limited. We agree with the Examiner’s findings are
reasoning with respect to claim 15.
Claim 24
In addition to the limitations of claim 15, claim 24 requires that the
claimed sol contain a hydroxy metallate “formed by hydrolysis of a sol-gel
precursor” and an “organic solvent comprising an organic by-product arising
from the hydrolysis of said sol-gel precursor.” The Examiner rejected claim
24 over Uo, Hino, Kline, Rao, and Schmidt. Schmidt discloses that
“hydrolysis of alkoxysilanes produces an alcohol.” Final Office Action 8
(mailed 08/24/04). The Appellants do not argue this claim separately. Thus,
we rely upon our above analysis to address claim 24.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner has made a prima facie case that claims 26, 28, 15 and
24 would have been obvious in view of the cited art. Appellants have not
successfully rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 26, 28, 15, and 24.
Lacking any argument regarding their separate patentability, we also
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of the remaining pending claims 16-23, 25,
29, and 31-39 under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013