Appeal 2007-1375
Application 10/327,300
limitation of the claims on appeal would have been “inherent” to the Ye
materials since the claimed pore volume is “a property of conventionally
known aerogel materials” (id.).
The Examiner contends that Ye and Maldonado “are combinable
because they teach Pt containing aerogels” (Answer 5) and each reference
teaches carbon aerogels containing platinum particles formed by a gel stage
(Answer, paragraph bridging pages 11-12).
Accordingly, the issues presented on the record in this appeal are as
follows: (1) does Ye disclose, either expressly or inherently, the limitations
of claim 33 on appeal, namely the particle size range, the pore volume range,
and the range of weight of metallic particles?; (2) is there a sufficient
suggestion or technical reasoning for the references to be combined as
proposed by the Examiner?; and (3) if properly combined, do the references
disclose or suggest all the claim limitations?
We determine that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of anticipation over Ye, and failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness over Ye, Maldonado, and Hammerschmidt.3 Therefore, we
REVERSE all grounds of rejection present in this appeal essentially for the
reasons stated in the Brief and Reply Brief, as well as those reasons set forth
below.
3 Since Hammerschmidt was only applied by the Examiner against claim 15
(Answer 5-6), which now has been cancelled, we need not discuss this
reference (Reply Br. 7).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013