35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in
view Reichl and Mueller.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view Reichl and
Mueller, and further in view of Morgan.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s answer, for
the examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellants’ brief and reply brief for
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
With respect to independent claim 17, appellants indicate
that claim 17 requires, inter alia, (1) providing a solution
of a coal-derived material and (2) silicon oxide in
particulate form, (brief, page 4).
Appellants argue that Yamaguchi utilizes a solution of a
liquid silicic acid rather than silicon oxide in particulate
form as recited in claim 17. (brief, page 5).
The examiner argues that comparative example 1 in column
9 of Yamaguchi uses silica powder. We find, however, that an
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007