Ex parte GRINDATTO et al. - Page 4

          Appeal No. 1997-2284                                                         
          Application 08/278,107                                                       

          claims require only two macropores and two mesopores which                   
          would be made by any practical process and would be                          
          essentially undetectable (answer, page 4).  The examiner does                
          not explain, however, why, even if two pores of each type                    
          necessarily are formed, the foam produced would have a density               
          and a surface area within the ranges recited in appellants’                  
          claim 1.  Nor does the examiner explain why Welsh would have                 
          led one of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the                        
          preparation of the carbide foam such that the combination of                 
          characteristics recited in appellants’ claim 1 is obtained.                  
               For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has                 
          not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of                 
          obviousness of the invention recited in either of appellants’                
          claims.  Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection is reversed.                  
               The rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C.  103                   
          over Welsh taken with appellants’ admitted prior art is                      


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007