Ex Parte Pope et al - Page 2

                Appeal 2007-0911                                                                                 
                Application 10/058,808                                                                           
                       Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a ceramic fiber product                      
                comprising hafnium carbide derived from a pre-ceramic fiber.  Claims 7 and                       
                8 are reproduced below:                                                                          
                       7.  Hafnium carbide containing ceramic fiber derived from a pre-                          
                ceramic polymer formed by a process comprising the steps of:                                     
                       a.  melting a hafnium containing pre-ceramic polymer;                                     
                       b.  extruding said polymer through an orifice to form fiber;                              
                       c.  cross-linking said fiber; and                                                         
                       d.  heating said cross-linked fiber under controlled atmospheric                          
                conditions at a temperature greater than 600 degrees centigrade to obtain a                      
                hafnium carbide containing ceramic fiber.                                                        
                       8.  A ceramic fiber comprising hafnium carbide derived from a pre-                        
                ceramic polymer.                                                                                 
                       The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence                     
                in rejecting the appealed claims:                                                                
                Uemura   US 5,399,378   Mar. 21, 1995                                                            
                Hilmas   US 6,355,338 B1   Mar. 12, 2002                                                         

                       Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being                              
                anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                         
                unpatentable over Hilmas.  Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)                      
                as being anticipated by Uemura.                                                                  
                       We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for                             
                patentability.  However, we find no reversible error in the Examiner's                           




                                                       2                                                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013