Appeal No. 1997-0540
Application No. 08/209,847
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we will sustain the
examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 11, 12, 14, 15 and 22 but
not the corresponding rejection of claim 9.
Appealed claim 9 is directed to the ceramic insulation
produced by the process of now-allowed independent claim 1.
This last mentioned claim defines a step of "converting the
metal in the mat to a ceramic to form bonds between the
ceramic fibers, microparticles, and mixtures thereof." Thus,
in order to render product claim 9 unpatentable, the applied
prior art must contain some teaching or suggestion of ceramic
insulation which contains bonds of the aforementioned type
described by process claim 1.
However, as discussed more fully below, the prior art
relied upon by the examiner regarding metal concerns its use
as an opacifier rather than as an ingredient to form bonds
between ceramic components. In addition, there is no basis in
the record before us for concluding that the metal-containing
insulation taught or suggested by the applied prior art would
inherently contain the aforementioned bonds. Indeed, the
examiner has not even alleged, much less carried his burden of
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007