Appeal No. 2003-0024
Application No. 09/748,948
(k) applying a first heat treatment to the dried gel at a second predetermined
temperature to remove organic materials in the dried gel; and
(l) applying a second heat treatment at a sintering temperature to vitrify the
first heat treated dried gel.
CITED PRIOR ART
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following references:
Motoki et al. (Motoki) 4,680,048 Jul. 14, 1987
Fleming et al. (Fleming) 4,767,429 Aug. 30, 1988
Baik et al. (Baik) 5,912,397 Jun. 15, 1999
The Examiner has rejected claims 2 to 6 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Baik and Motoki; and claims 7-8 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Baik, Motoki
and Fleming. (Final Rejection, pp. 2-4).
DISCUSSION
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and
Appellants concerning the above-noted rejection, we refer to the Answer and the Briefs.
Appellants have indicated that the claims stand or fall together. (Brief, p. 4).2 We
will select one claim for each rejection to determine the issues on appeal. 37 CFR
2 Appellants have failed to provide a grouping of the claims for each ground of rejection.
Claims 7 and 8 are subject to different ground of rejection.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007