On the record before us, the products of both the claimed subject matter and the
references of record are prepared by the same process, that of pyrolysis. The difference
between them is in the composition of the starting materials of the prior art which differ from
each other and from that of the claimed subject matter. The examiner assumes throughout
the prosecution that following pyrolysis, each of the ceramic products will be the same or
substantially the same. However, the examiner has not established that the polymers of the
prior art form the same ceramic as, or one substantially the same as, the ceramic of the
claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we do not sustain either the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
102 or § 103(a) of the examiner.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the
alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Riccitiello (‘728) or (‘278), Niebylski and
Zank are reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007