Appeal No. 2001-0233
Application 08/668,640
The Examiner has failed to point out where one of ordinary skill in the art may
find the suggestion for departing so significantly from this suggested and disclosed
range.
We are cognizant of the Examiner’s contention that it would be contingent upon
the degree of porosity sought. But the only porosity discussed in the Beck references
refers to the porosity of the zeolite (Beck I, column 1, lines 13-26) or an optional porous
matrix material such as silica-alumina (column 5, lines 44-51). Further, Beck discusses
the particle size in the context only of the powder, granule, or molded particle (Beck I,
column 4, lines 63-68).
The claimed subject matter refers to the porosity of the ceramic produced from
the mixture, not the porosity of the components themselves. While it may indeed be
the case that the porosity of the final ceramic is known to be affected by the particle size
of its constituents, the Examiner still bears the burden of providing sufficient motivation
for departing from the disclosed range in the reference to arrive at the claimed subject
matter. This she has not done. Consequently, we are constrained to reverse this
rejection.
The Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 12, 14, 36, and 37
under 35 U.SC. § 103(a) over Nishihara
The Examiner has found that Nishihara discloses a polycarbosilane having a
number average molecular weight of 400-50,000 in admixture with an inorganic filler in
the concentration ranges of the claims. The mixture is subsequently sintered and has
an ultrafine particle network. (Examiner’s Answer, page 9, lines 1-7). The particles are
presumed to have a size on the order of 10 microns as the coating would otherwise not
have a smooth finish (Examiner’s Answer, page 10, lines 1-2).
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007