Appeal No. 2006-0816
Application 09/997,081
col. 2, ll. 20-26).
On this record, we determine that the claimed method reads on the preparation of any
manner of “a hydrophilic carbon fiber construction” comprising at least the step, among others,
of “immersing” any manner of “a carbon fiber construction.” We determine that in light of the
specification, the term “construction” means the carbon fibers are formed into any manner of
structure, which includes woven and non-woven cloth, paper and tows. Indeed, we find no basis
in the claim language or in the written description in the specification on which to read into the
claims the limitation that the term “construction” is limited to woven or non-woven construction,
and in fact, a tow is a “construction.” We further find no basis in the claim language or in the
written description in the specification to read into the claims any limitation on the term
“construction” based on any intended use disclosed in the specification for “a hydrophilic carbon
fiber construction” as appellants argue. We further determine that “a carbon fiber” must have a
carbon fiber core, and that, on this record, the carbon fiber core can be coated with any manner
of coating which does not preclude the claimed method from depositing any amount, however
small, of either or both types of zeta potential metal oxides such that the resulting carbon fiber
construction would be hydrophilic to any extent. Indeed, appellants do not contend that the
subject claim language reads on “a carbon fiber” per se, and we find no basis in the written
description in the specification which precludes the broadest reasonable interpretation in context
of this language that we have stated above.
Accordingly, in view of our finding above that Illston would not have disclosed a carbon
core fiber construction, which construction is required by the subject claim language as we have
interpreted it above, we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the claimed invention encompassed by the appealed claims over the combined
teachings of Illston and Bett, and therefore, we reverse this ground of rejection.
Considering now the ground of rejection of the appealed claims over the combined
teachings of Boccaccini and Bett, appellants submit, with respect to all appealed claims, only
that “the product [of the claimed process] must be suitable for use as a fuel cell gas diffusion
layer” (brief, page 5), and that the “continuous tows” of Ni-coated carbon fibers used in the
1 See generally, McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms 2048 (5th ed., Sybil
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007