Appeal 2007-0166
Application 10/195,757
II. PRIOR ART
As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the
Examiner has relied upon the following sole reference:
Yadav US 6,569,397 B1 May 27, 2003
III. REJECTION
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 12 and 17 through 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the disclosure of Yadav.
IV. ISSUE:
Would Yadav have taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art to generate an aerosol comprising solid metallic precursor microparticles
before introducing it into a microwave plasma reactor for the purpose of
producing metal oxide nanoparticles?
VI. FACTUAL FINDINGS, PRINCIPLES OF LAW, AND ANALYSIS
As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner relies on the disclosure of
Yadav (Answer 3). According to the Examiner (id.):
Yadav suggests the instantly claimed process of forming
an aerosol by suspending a metal containing emulsion, i.e. solid
metallic microparticles, in a gas (col. 6, lines 51-64) which is
fed to a microwave plasma to vaporize the powder suspension
(col. 6, line 64 to col. 7, line 10). The metal vapor is cooled and
oxidized to form metal oxide nanoparticles such as aluminum
oxide and magnesium oxide (col. 7, lines 15-43, example 1 and
Table 2).
Yadav may differ as to the size of the microparticles,
however size of an article is not a matter of invention. In re
Rose,[220 F.2d 459, 463,]105 USPQ 237[, 240 (CCPA 1955)].
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013