Appeal No. 2003-0024
Application No. 09/748,948
alkoxide, ultra fine particle, the sol solution, the wet gel, the dry gel or during sintering.”
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that a dopant in
gaseous form could have been added in any of the stages identified by Motoki. “For
obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.”
In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Appellants also argue that Baik and Motoki “only disclose a single heat treatment
process, i.e. a sintering process.” (Brief, p. 7). The Appellants assert claim 2 requires
heating the dried gel at a predetermined temperature to remove organic materials in the
dried gel and a second heat treatment at a sintering temperature. (Steps (k) and (l)). We
are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Baik discloses, example 2, that the gel was
dried for ten days at 30oC, twenty-four hours at 40oC and twenty-four hours at 50oC.
Subsequently, the dried gel was subject to 900oC for about five hours to remove the
remaining moisture and organic materials. The dried gel was sintered at 1300oC. (Col. 6).
Motoki also discloses a similar heating sequence to remove Hydroxide groups. (Example
1). Thus, both Baik and Motoki disclose the heating sequence required by claim 2.
The Examiner also rejected claims 7 and 8 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Baik, Motoki and Fleming. (Final Rejection,
p. 4). Appellants argues that Fleming fails to remedy the deficiencies of Baik and Motoki
with regard to claim 2. Thus, claims 7 and 8 are patentable for the same reasons as
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007