Applicants argue with respect to claims 20, 24 and 26 that the references do not teach the
strengthening heat treatment. Appeal Brief, p. 5. We cannot agree that the references do not teach a
strengthened, heat treated product. Applicants’ heat treatment is merely a final heating step. According
to applicant’s specification, heat treating is the final heating step after gelation and drying. Specification,
pp. 16-17. The heat treatment “serves to further stabilize the insulation and to prevent shrinkage during
subsequent high temperature service.” Specification, p. 17. The heat treatment step also “can increase the
strength of the insulation . . . .” Specification, p 17. Ardary, similarly describes a final “heat treatment”
which he calls “firing” to stabilize and sinter (and thus strengthen) the insulation after gelation and drying.
Ardary, col. 3, lines 20-38. Ardary teaches: The dried composite is then fired in air or
another suitable oxidizing medium at a
temperature of 600 to 1000EC. for a
duration of one hour or more depending
on the size of the composite but at least
sufficient to assure that the interior of the
composite has reached the desired firing
temperature. This firing step sinters
together the particulates in the binder to
form a matrix in which the fibers are
firmly held. The sintering step effects the
burnout of any volatile organic materials
present in the composites and effectively
shrinks the binder about the fibers to
assure that further shrinkage of the
insulation does not occur during high
temperature use.
Ardary, col. 3, lines 31-44.
While Ardary teaches the heat treatment step which would strengthen the insulation, we have not
been directed to any part of the record that teaches a insulation having a tensile strength of “at least .244
M Pa” as required by claims 20-25 and 30. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection as to those claims.
Claim 26, however, does not require that the insulation have any particular tensile strength. There
is no limitation in claim 26 which in anyway distinguishes the products disclosed by Ardary and from those
claimed by applicant. We affirm the rejection as to claim 26.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007