Appeal No. 2007-0048 Page 12
Application No. 10/234,608
web with “at least one perforation” because, as Kim suggests, it would facilitate
separating the web into panels of desired size.
Regarding claim 12, which further defines the aerogel material of claim 11
as being in granular form, Appellant's specification (p. 2, lines 1-9) admits that
the “normal” form of aerogel is the granular form. Indeed, Martin describes prior
art methods as compacting aerogel particles to provide a thermal insulation
(column 1, lines 12-53). Given Appellant's admission that aerogel is “normally”
granular and Martin's teaching of the conventional use of aerogel particles
(granules) for thermal insulation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to use granular aerogel as the aerogel in the aerogel-filled panels
of the web as recited in Appellant's claim 12.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed and the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 11
and 12 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) is reversed.
This decision also contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004,69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (august 12, 2004),
1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)).
37 CFR § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this
paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013