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
diameter.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007