Appeal No. 2000-0119
Application 08/785,711
merely points out that where general conditions are disclosed in
the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or
workable ranges by routine experimentation, and then concludes
that all such limitations would have been obvious since Rosinski
and Grube set forth the general conditions of expanding a liquid
into a gaseous state in order to comminute a ceramic into
fragments.
Appellants assert in their amended brief (Paper No. 13)
that the combination of Rosinski and Grube proposed by the
examiner cannot be made without hindsight and that the examiner
is using an improper “obvious to try” approach in proposing such
combination. More particularly, appellants point out that an
important goal of Rosinski is to produce fragmented ceramic
materials that are “essentially colloidal in dimension, or
essentially micron to colloidal in size” (col. 2, lines 44-49)
and that the process in Rosinski is said to provide “a unique
measure of control over those properties of porous solids having
influence on adsorptive and catalytic effectiveness” (col. 2,
lines 27-30). Appellants then urge that such control and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007