Appeal 2007-1931
Application 10/247,330
1. A precipitated silica having a
BET surface area ranging from 255 to 600 m2/g
CTAB surface area ranging from 150 to 350 m2/g
wherein the BET/CTAB surface ratio is ≥ 1.7.
The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Uhrlandt 6,180,076 B1 Jan. 30, 2001
Blume 6,268,424 B1 Jul. 31, 2001
Materne 6,306,949 B1 Oct. 23, 2001
Kirino 6,433,066 B2 Aug. 13, 2002
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a precipitated silica
having a BET, CTAB, and BET/CTAB surface ratio within the recited
ranges.
Appealed claims 1-7 and 17-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, description requirement. Claims 1-7 and 17-21 stand
provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting over claims of U.S. application no. 11/058,293.
Claims 1-5, 7, 17-20, and 22 stand rejected unde4r 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kirino. Also, claims 1-7 and 17-22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kirino in view of Materne,
Blume or Uhrlandt.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013