Appeal No. 2001-1723
Application No. 09/112,263
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
1) Claims 1 through 3, 5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the disclosure of
Hotaling ‘364;
2) Claims 1 through 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the disclosure of
Hotaling ‘776; and
3) Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the disclosure of either Hotaling ‘364 or
‘776.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and prior art, including all of the
evidence and arguments advanced by both the examiner and appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review leads us to conclude that the examiner’s §§ 102(b) and 103 rejections are
well founded. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s §§ 102(b) and 103 rejections for
essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer and below.
We find that Hotaling ‘364 and ‘776 describe an aerogel substrate planarized with SiO2
using plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition. See Hotaling ‘364, column 3, lines 45-48 and
column 5, lines 45-66, and Hotaling ‘776, column 4, lines 50-53 and column 6, lines 15-46. The
examiner determines that the aerogel substrate corresponds to the claimed layer of rigid, cellular
material and that the planarizing SiO2 layer corresponds to the claimed thin glass sheet. See, e.g.,
the Answer, pages 3-4.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007