Appeal No. 96-0158
Application No. 08/110,003
In short, it is our view that the disclosure of Marek
teaches or at least would have suggested soaking or uniformly
infiltrating his porous polyurethane material with his carbon
precursor solution until the porous material is saturated (and
then curing the thus saturated porous and precursor materials)
in order to achieve the absorption and penetration necessary
to obtain a carbonized foam having superior mechanical
properties as desired by patentee. Stated otherwise, the
infiltrating and curing steps of the independent claims on
appeal are indistinguishable from or at least would have been
obvious over the soaking and curing steps of Marek.
In light of the foregoing, we hereby sustain the
examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 11, 12 and 15 as
being unpatentable over Marek taken with Vinton and Simandl.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007