Appeal 2007-1938
Application 10/050,437
18, all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
The claimed subject matter relates to a method for producing a carbon
aerogel composite. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
infiltrating a solution containing a plurality
of carbon aerogel precursors into a pre-formed
polymer foam, or fiber-mat,
allowing said solution to gel such that it
encapsulates at least part of the pre-formed
polymer foam or fiber-mat to form a gelled
composite,
drying the gelled composite to form a dried
composite such that the surface tensile forces are
reduced, and
pyrolyzing the dried composite wherein the
preformed polymer foam or fiber-mat and the
carbon aerogel decompose simultaneously such
that they remain essentially in contact at their
interfaces to form a monolithic glassy carbon
material.
The Examiner has relied on the following references of record as
evidence of unpatentability:
Kaschmitter US 5,260,855 Nov. 9, 1993
Pekala US 5,932,185 Aug. 3, 1999
Droege US 5,945,084 Aug. 31, 1999
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Droege; claims 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Droege; and, claims 1, 4, 8 and 18 as under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013