Appeal 2007-0911
Application 10/058,808
ceramic yield during preliminary experimentation referred to in the
Specification has not been established by Appellants as a patentable
distinction for the product of claim 7 (Specification, p. 72, ll. 2-4).3
Concerning Appellants’ argument about the claimed melting of a pre-
ceramic polymer resulting in a patentable distinction in the product made,
we note that this argument does not fairly address the Examiner’s
determinations respecting the description of a corresponding melting step in
the formation of the fiber product of Hilmas, much less substantiate a
patentable product distinction based on this claim requirement for a
hafnium-containing pre-ceramic polymer melting step during the fiber
product formation (Compare Br. 7-8 with Answer 4-7).
For the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, we affirm the
Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections of claims 7 and 8 over
Hilmas, on this record.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 7 and 8 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; and to reject claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Uemura is affirmed.
3 Indeed, Appellants’ Specification reports that “[m]ore study is needed to
find optimal conditions for cross-linking…” (Specification, p. 72, ll. 9-11).
This disclosure is hardly suggestive of a described, much less a claimed
patentable improvement based on a particular degree of cross-linking
employed in making the claimed product.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013