Appeal 2007-1938
Application 10/050,437
relate to carbon aerogels and carbon aerogel composites. Thus, the weight
of the evidence indicates that the Droege method produces a "monolithic
glassy carbon" material composite. Appellant has not shown otherwise.
Appellant's argument that Droege "teaches a drying method that does
not reduce surface tensile forces adequately to produce a monolithic
composite" is also unpersuasive of Examiner error. Appellant has not
explained what defines an "adequate" reduction in surface tensile forces,
e.g., reduced vis-à-vis what standard reduction. Without a reasoned basis for
comparing the drying step of claim 1 with the drying step of Droege, we find
that the method of Droege meets the drying limitation of the claimed
method. Moreover, since the method of Droege produces a monolithic
glassy carbon material, e.g., a monolithic carbon aerogel composite having a
pore size distribution less than 100 nm (FF 22-FF 24), it appears that
Droege's method does satisfy the claim limitation of a drying step "such that
the surface tensile forces are reduced." Appellant has not come forward
with evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, we will affirm the rejections of
claims 1 and 18 under § 102(b) and of claims 4 and 8 under § 103(a) over
Droege.
IV. Obviousness Rejection Based on Pekala in view of Kaschmitter
A claimed invention is not patentable if its subject matter would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); Graham
v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966). Facts relevant to a
determination of obviousness include (1) the scope and content of the prior
art, (2) any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, (3)
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013