Appeal 2007-0911
Application 10/058,808
In light of the above and for reasons stated in the Answer (pp. 5, 6,
and 8), we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 8 over
Uemura.
§ 102(e)/§ 103(a) Rejection over Hilmas
Each of the rejected claims 7 and 8 are drawn to a hafnium carbide-
containing ceramic fiber product that is further described in terms of the
process by which it is made with claim 7 providing several process
limitations for forming the product from a pre-ceramic polymer.
The Examiner has found that Hilmas describes a composite fiber
including a hafnium carbide ceramic-layer that is embraced by the products
of each of claims 7 and 8 (Answer 4-5; Hilmas, col. 5, ll. 1-14, col. 7, ll. 10-
19, Example 1).2
At the outset, we note that Appellants do not present any arguments
against the Examiner’s anticipation and/or obviousness rejections of claim 8
over Hilmas in the Brief. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the
Examiner’s rejection over Hilmas as to rejected claim 8.
With regard to rejected claim 7, Appellants contend that Hilmas does
not disclose a structural ceramic fiber product, as allegedly required by
claim 7. Also, Appellants urge that Hilmas does not disclose cross-linking a
hafnium-containing polymer prior to pyrolysis and/or performing a step of
melting a hafnium-containing pre-ceramic polymer in making the product
HfC-containing composite fiber described therein.
Thus, the issue before us is: Have Appellants identified reversible
error in the Examiner’s anticipation and/or obviousness rejection over
2 Appellants do not dispute the availability of Hilmas as prior art to the
appealed claims.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013