Appeal No. 1996-2530
Application 08/246,324
Against this background, the examiner concludes
that:
Because the prior art discloses process steps
substantially the same as presently claimed, which
may be performed using materials substantially the
same as those used in the process of the appealed
claims and under identical conditions (temperature,
etc.), a prima facie case of obviousness has been
established between the disclosure of Wood and the
invention of the claims on appeal.
While examiner follows the standard Graham v. Deere
analysis, it is deficient in one important respect. It
does not address all the limitations of the claimed
invention; namely, it does not address the fact that, in
contrast to Wood, the claimed method specifically calls
for
... producing at least one of an oxide powder and
a metal powder; and
recovering said powder.
As Appellants have argued, "it is clear throughout
the Wood et al. reference that the product produced by
the process taught by the Wood et al. patent is a rigid
ceramic foam structure," brief, p. 4, and not a powder.
From our review of Wood, we agree with appellants that
Wood teaches
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007