Appeal 2007-1938
Application 10/050,437
distribution of 20 nm and a density of 419 kg/m3 (Droege col. 16, l. 40
- col. 17, l. 7, esp. col. 17, ll. 3-4, and col. 19, l. 15).
[25] The Examiner found that Droege taught a method comprising (i)
forming a reaction mixture containing a plurality of carbon aerogel
precursors, e.g., resorcinol and formaldehyde, (ii) infiltrating a porous
carbon or organic substrate in the form of a foam, fiber, etc., with the
reaction mixture, (iii) heating at a gelation temperature to gel the
reaction mixture, (iv) heating the composite at a curing temperature to
cure the gel, (v) drying the composite and (vi) pyrolyzing the
composite to carbonize (Answer 2; Rejection3 3).
[26] The Examiner found that Droege taught drying by conventional
methods, including supercritical evaporation using supercritical
carbon dioxide (Answer 2; Rejection 3).
[27] The Examiner construed the claim term "monolithic" as meaning "a
uniform whole" (Answer 3).
[28] Thus, the Examiner found claims 1 and 18 anticipated by Droege
(Answer 2).
[29] The Examiner also found that gelation and pyrolysis times and
temperatures were result effective variables (Answer 2; Rejection 4).
[30] The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use a gelation temperature slightly higher
than the 20 to 70o C range taught by Droege, e.g., 80o C as recited in
claim 4, in order to allow for a shorter gelation time (Answer 2;
Rejection 4).
3 We refer to the Office action mailed 20 July 2004 ("Rejection") cited in the
Answer.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013