Appeal No. 2002-0181
Application No. 08/476,497
It follows then that we also cannot uphold the examiner’s
rejection of appealed claims 21 and 22 on this ground.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Singh
The examiner points out that Singh describes composite
materials having a porosity less than 1% by volume and including
fibrous materials and a matrix material. (Answer, unnumbered
page 3.) In response to the appellant’s argument that Singh
does not teach the use of a powder material having a particle
size in the range of about 1 to 100 nanometers (appeal brief,
page 8), the examiner states: “The nano-sized particle sizes are
drawn to the starting materials used to produce the claimed
product.” (Answer, page 4, misnumbered as page 2.)
We disagree with the examiner’s analysis. Singh describes,
as the most preferred embodiment, a sintered ceramic phase
having an average grain size “less than about 10 microns.”2
(Column 9, lines 13-20.) The examiner has not identified any
evidence or scientific reasoning to establish that a powder
material having a particle size in the range of about 1 to 100
nanometers is capable of forming a sintered ceramic phase having
an average grain size “less than about 10 microns” when
subjected to the forming conditions encompassed by the appealed
2 Less preferred embodiments are said to have even greater
average grain sizes in the sintered ceramic phase.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007