Appeal No. 2000-0119
Application 08/785,711
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejection and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding the rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 14, mailed March 15, 1999) for the reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellants’ amended brief (Paper
No. 13, filed January 22, 1999) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
In the examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 9, 11, 13 and
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rosinski
in view of Grube, the examiner has found that Rosinski discloses
impregnating a porous ceramic material with a fluid (e.g., nitro-
glycerin) such that the pores of the ceramic material are at
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007