Appeal 2007-0738
Application 11/109,274
Appellants submit that "DiChiara only describes drying by heating or
at room temperature their impregnated body and when Applicants used
heating to dry their impregnated porous ceramic body, a non-uniform
distribution resulted" (page 7 of Br., last para.). However, we fail to see any
correspondence between Appellants' Specification Example 7 which dried
the body at 110 C. in an oven, and DiChiara's "letting the ceramic body dry
at room temperature to remove the solvents" (col. 4, ll. 57-58). Also, claim
1 does not require any particular method of drying to remove the solvent.
Appellants also maintain that "DiChiara fails to describe precipitating
the boron source from solution and teaches away from having the boron
compound in a solution at all" (page 11 of Br., first full para.). However,
since DiChiara uses boron carbide or boron nitride in composition with
water, as do Appellants, it is reasonable to conclude that the aqueous slurry
of Dichiara comprises the boron compound in solution to at least some
degree.
Appellants submit for separately argued claim 7 that "the porous
ceramic body is exposed by volitalizing a boron source by heating a separate
source of boron in the presence of the porous ceramic body" (page 11 of Br.,
second full para.). However, this argument is not commensurate in scope
with the language of claim 7. Claim 7 does not recite any volitalizing of a
boron source, but only that "the porous ceramic body is exposed to the
source of boron by heating, simultaneously, a separately provided source of
boron along with the porous ceramic body." This step does not distinguish
from DiChirara's heating the boron compound in aqueous composition while
impregnated in the pores of the ceramic body.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013