Appeal No. 1996-3496
Application No. 08/167,288
of claims 1 through 4 and 6 over the combined disclosures of
Wald and Leitheiser.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Bauer, Clark, Shabaker and Koppers.
The examiner takes the position that it would have been
obvious to employ the solid balls of ceramic materials (inert
particles) described in Clark, Shabaker and Koppers as a heat
source in the ceramic powder making process described in
Bauer. See Answer, pages 6-8. We cannot agree with the
examiner for essentially those reasons set forth by appellants
at pages 23 through 31 of the Brief. We find that the
examiner has not supplied sufficient facts to explain why
firing a mixture of the solid balls of ceramic material
described in Clark, Shabaker and Koppers and the ceramic
precursor particles described in Bauer would have been
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. When solid
powder, such as those precursor particles described in Bauer,
is already primarily heated with the solid balls of ceramic
materials, as taught by Clark, Shabaker and Koppers, there
appears to be no incentive on the part of one of ordinary
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007