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.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Welsh taken with appellants’ admitted prior art is
reversed.
REVERSED
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007