Ex parte CHIENG et al. - Page 8

          Appeal No. 94-2414                                                           
          Application 07/911,504                                                       

          inherently possess the characteristics of the claimed product.               
          See, for example, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289,             
          292-93 (Fed. Cir. 1983).  Here, appellants have failed to provide            
          any evidence demonstrating that the unreacted prior art dry gels             
          disclosed by Colin do not possess “essentially one form of                   
          silanol moiety” thereon, much less evidence demonstrating any                
          difference between the prior art bonded silica gels and the                  
          claimed bonded silica gels.                                                  
               In light of the foregoing, we affirm the rejection of                   
          product-by-process claims 32 and 34.                                         

                       THE PRIOR ART REJECTIONS OF CLAIMS 35-46                        
               Claims 35-46, although drafted as product-by-process claims,            
          stand on a different footing than claims 32 and 34.  These claims            
          define a silica gel having a specific surface area between about             
          200 and 600 m /g, average pore diameters in the range of about 502                                                               
          to about 200 Angstroms, and importantly, a narrow pore diameter              
          distribution wherein said distribution has a standard deviation              
          and pore diameter less than about 25 percent of the average pore             


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007