Appeal No. 2002-1330
Application No. 09/178,249
(Column 6, lines 10-60.) Smith further describes the
introduction of a vapor-phase catalyst such as ammonia to
further activate the sol and promote rapid cross-linking.
(Column 8, lines 46-50; column 30, line 62 to column 31, line
8.)
The appellants’ only discernible argument is that
“Smith...does not suggest any flowing of the catalyst over the
precursor layer as required by claim 1.” (Appeal brief, page
3.) We disagree.
To start, we note that Smith’s catalyst is described as
performing the same function (i.e., catalyze the gelation
reaction) as the appellants’ recited catalyst. (Specification,
page 6, lines 21-23; Smith’s column 8, lines 40-53.) Also,
while a preferred embodiment of the invention includes
“continuously flowing” the catalyst through the “gel aging
chambers,” this feature of the invention is not specified in
appealed claim 1.
As pointed out by the examiner (answer, page 4), the
introduction of Smith’s catalyst vapor into closed chamber 32
(Figure 19C) to catalyze the reaction (i.e., gelation) of the
precursor sol film would necessarily result in the movement of
confine our discussion to claim 1. 37 CFR §§ 1.192(a), c(7) and
c(8) (1995, 1997).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007