Appeal 2007-1938
Application 10/050,437
[31] The Examiner further concluded that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to use a pyrolysis time longer than the
typical 1 to 6 hours taught by Droege, e.g., 8 to 12 hours as recited in
claim 8, to ensure that pyrolysis and carbonization is fully achieved
(Answer 2; Rejection 4).
[32] Appellant argues that Droege fails to teach a drying step which
adequately reduces surface tensile forces to produce a monolithic
composite or how to form an essentially monolithic composite when
pyrolyzed (Br. 4).
[33] Appellant relies on the Hrubresh Declaration in support of his position
(Br. 4).
C. The Hrubesh Declaration
[34] Lawrence W. Hrubesh, Ph.D., is the named inventor of the application
on appeal (Hrubesh Declaration at 1-2).
[35] Dr. Hrubesh testified that "monolithic glassy carbon composites of the
present invention have average pore sizes that are less than 100 nm"
because monolithic aerogels of comparable densities have average
pore sizes less than 100 nm as confirmed by Lu (Hrubesh Declaration
at 2).
[36] Dr. Hrubesh further testified that "typical pore sizes for supercritically
dried aerogels are less than 10 nm" as shown by Tajiri (Hrubesh
Declaration at 2).
[37] The Examiner found that the Hrubesh Declaration is not
commensurate in scope with the claims because it appears to require
particular drying conditions, whereas the claims are not so limited "so
long as surface tensile forces are reduced" (Answer 3).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013