Ex Parte DISMUKES et al - Page 2


              Appeal No. 2001-0233                                                                                       
              Application 08/668,640                                                                                     
              having a number average molecular weight in the range of from about 200 to about                           
              100,000 g/mole having uniformly dispersed therein less than 70 parts by weight of a                        
              particulate material selected from the group consisting of: i) non-silicon containing                      
              ceramics, ii) carbon, and iii) oxides, hydroxides, or sulfides of elements from Periodic                   
              Table Groups II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, or VIII having a decomposition temperature greater                   
              than 400°C and mixtures thereof; said particulate material having a mean particle size                     
              or mean diameter of less than about 10 microns; whereby the preceramic composite                           
              intermediate composition is capable of forming a microporous ceramic product having a                      
              surface area in excess of 50m2/gm and a volume of micropores greater than about                            
              0.015 cm2/gm.1                                                                                             
                                                     THE REFERENCES                                                      
                     In rejecting the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner relies on                      
              the following references:                                                                                  
              Porte et al. (Porte)                4,722,988                  Feb.  2, 1988                              
              Nishihara et al. (Nishihara)        4,929,507                  May 29, 1990                               
              Ayama et al. (Ayama)                4,937,304                  Jun. 26, 1990                              
              Takeuchi et al. (Takeuchi)          4,950,381                  Aug. 21, 1990                              
              Beck (Beck I)                      5,120,692                  Jun.   9, 1992                             
              Beck (Beck II)                     5,191,137                  Mar.   2, 1993                             
              Takeda et al. (Takeda)              5,393,815                  Feb. 28, 1995                              
                                                                         (filed Jul. 20, 1993)                           
              Yamamoto et al. (Yamamoto)          5,677,372                  Oct. 14. 1997                              
                                                                         (filed Dec. 8, 1995)                            
              The Appellants rely upon the following reference as evidence of nonobviousness:                            
              Dismukes et al. (Dismukes)          5,902,759                  May 11, 1999                               
                                                                        (filed Jan. 21, 1997)                            

                                                  THE REJECTIONS                                                         
                     Claims 1-4, 6-12, 15, 36, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                         
              being unpatentable over Takeda, alone or taken with Yamamoto.                                              

                                                                                                                         
              1 The Appellants have elected to group all of the claims together for each rejection.  Consequently, we will
              focus on claim 1 for each rejection as it is the broadest, and only independent, claim.  Claims must be    
              argued separately on appeal or they stand or fall together. See, e.g., In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1340,   
              48 USPQ2d 1635, 1636 (Fed. Cir. 1998).                                                                     


                                                           2                                                             



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007