Appeal 2007-1938
Application 10/050,437
as obvious over Pekala in view of Kaschmitter (Answer2 2). Kaschmitter,
Pekala and Droege qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellant relies on the following documents of record as evidence of
patentability:
Declaration under 37 CFR § 1.132 of Lawrence W. Hrubesh dated 19
January 2005 ("the Hrubesh Declaration")
Lu et al. ("Lu"), "Thermal and electrical conductivity of monolithic
carbon aerogels," J. Appl. Phys., vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 581-584 (15 January
1993)
Tajiri et al. ("Tajiri"), "Effects of supercritical drying media on
structure and properties of silica aerogel," J. Non-Crystalline Solids, Vol.
186, pp. 83-87 (1995).
Since Appellate has indicated that all the claims stand or fall together
(Br. at 4), we decide this appeal on the basis of claim 1. 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(v).
II. Findings of Fact ("FF")
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence of record. To the extent any "finding of fact" is a conclusion of
law, it should be so treated.
A. Appellant's specification
[1] Aerogels are said to be fragile materials (Specification ¶ 3).
[2] A composite of an organic aerogel and a reticulated vitreous carbon
("RVC") is said to combine the optical, thermal, acoustic, and
2 We refer to the Supplemental Examiner's Answer ("Answer") mailed 16
November 2006 in response to the Corrected Brief on Appeal ("Br.") filed
23 October 2006.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013