Appeal 2006-3315
Application 10/309,321
(b) claims 5 and 7 over Abe in view of Goldsmith and
Bacon,1
(c) claims 2-4 and 6 over Goldsmith in view of Ciora, and
(d) claims 5 and 7 over Goldsmith in view of Ciora and Bacon.
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 3 over
§ 102/§ 103 over Ciora. Although we agree with the Examiner that it would
have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to bond the aggregate
particles of Ciora’s intermediate layer with glass frit, we agree with
Appellants that Ciora does not describe such an embodiment within the
meaning of § 102. Indeed, as emphasized by Appellants, Ciora expressly
teaches that the firing or heating step which bonds the intermediate layer to
the substrate effects a very strong bond without the use of additives such as
glass frits (column 5, lines 31 et seq.).
As for the § 103 rejection of claims 2 and 3 over Ciora, the Examiner
has not refuted Appellants’ Specification data which demonstrates that
Appellants’ use of titania in the separation layer is not equivalent to the use
of alumina exemplified by Ciora. Appellants contend that the Specification
data shows that “the use of titania in the claimed separation layer in fact
imparts to the ceramic filter unexpectedly improved fouling characteristics
compared to separation layers specifically including alumina” (principal
1 On page 3, section (8) entitled “Evidence Relied Upon,” of the Examiner’s
Answer, the Examiner incorrectly refers to the Eriksson reference as the
Bacon reference.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013