Appeal No. 94-2414
Application 07/911,504
We have carefully reviewed each of the relied upon prior art
references, particularly Hench, that form the basis of the
examiner’s rejections.
As persuasively argued by appellants, the narrow pore
diameter distribution is an integral limitation of these claims,
and none of the relied upon references, including Hench, teach
one of ordinary skill in the art how to make a silica gel having
a pore diameter distribution having a standard deviation and pore
diameter less than about 25 percent of the average pore diameter
as claimed. Particularly, see the brief at page 5.
Essentially, for the reasons set forth in appellants’
briefs, we agree that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness for the subject matter defined by
appealed claims 35-46. We, therefore, reverse the examiner’s
rejections of these claims.
In summary, the rejection of claims 32 and 34 is affirmed.
The rejections of claims 35-46 is reversed. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007