Appeal No. 2006-0581
Application 09/997,082
(a) claims 10-19 over Zuber in view of either Lenfant or
Kosuda,
(b) claims 10-16 and 19 over Breault in view of either of
Lenfant or Kosuda,
(c) claims 17 and 18 over Breault in view of either Lenfant
or Kosuda further in view of Zuber.
We have throughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments for
patentability, as well as the specification data relied upon in
support thereof. However, we are in complete agreement with the
examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view
of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in the
answer.
There is no dispute that both Zuber and Breault, the two
primary references, disclose, like appellants, a method of making a
hydrophobic carbon fiber construction by emerging the construction
in an aqueous dispersion of a highly fluorinated polymer. As
recognized by the examiner, neither Zuber nor Breault teaches the
electrophoretic deposition of the polymer on the carbon fiber
construction. However, we agree with the examiner that Kosuda
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007