Appeal No. 2001-0233
Application 08/668,640
examples. We therefore conclude that the Examiner has put forth substantial
evidence to support a prima facie case of obviousness.
The Rejection of Claims 1-4, 7-9, 12, 14, 15, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a)
over Beck I or Beck II in view of Porte, Takeuchi, or Ayama
The Examiner has found that Beck I teaches compositions manifesting ceramic
properties which comprise a molecular sieve onto which is coated a thermal
decomposable resin such as polysilane. Optional non-oxide ceramics such as
aluminum nitride or titanium boride, or clays, silica, or other metal oxides such as
alumina may be present. Takeuchi, Ayama, and Beck are said to disclose that
polysilazane and polycarbosilanes have the claimed number average molecular
weights. (Examiner’s Answer, page 7, line 14 - page 8, line 11).
The Appellants make multiple arguments, including:
(1) that there is no motivation to combine these references, as none of the
references suggest combining the zeolite of Beck with the polycarbosilanes or
polysilazanes of the other references (Appeal Brief, page 11, lines 3-23);
(2) that there is no reasonable expectation of success (Appeal Brief, page 11,
line 24 et seq.); and
(3) that there is no disclosure in the prior art of:
(i) the ratio of particulate material to ceramic precursor,
(ii) the size and decomposition temperature of the particulate material,
(iii) the uniform dispersion of the particulate material in the ceramic
precursor;
(iv) the specific ceramic precursor, and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007