Appeal No. 2002-0465
Application No. 09/432,610 Page 4
A reading of appealed claim 28, the sole independent claim
on appeal, reveals that all of the claims on appeal require a
method that includes several steps as outlined above for
patterning a surface atomic layer of a graphite sheet.
With regard to the examiner’s § 103 rejection over Hoffman
and Brown, the examiner (answer, pages 2 and 3) asserts that
Hoffman treats graphite with catalytic metal to enlarge surface
defects/pores and relies on Brown for allegedly showing a regular
hole shape that Hoffman does not disclose. However, even if we
could agree with all of the examiner’s assertions regarding the
prior art teachings, which we do not,1 the examiner has not
fairly established how those teachings that the examiner
attributes to the applied references would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to the here claimed method.
With regard to the examiner’s § 103 rejection over Jones and
Brown, the examiner’s explanation falls somewhat short of making
1 We note, for example, that Hoffman appears to be concerned
with increasing the active surface area and roughness of a carbon
fiber surface and does not even appear to mention forming holes
in a surface atomic layer of graphite at selected growth points
let alone treat such a surface as herein claimed to form a
pattern via heating the surface atomic layer so as to enlarge
such holes.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007