Appeal 2007-1938
Application 10/050,437
[48] The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to use the a carbon aerogel precursor solution
having an R/C value of 50 as disclosed by Kashmitter in the process
of Pekala in order to obtain the highest capacitance from the produced
electrode (Answer 2; Rejection 6).
[49] Appellant argues that the composites produced by Pekala and
Kashmitter do not form monolithic foam/mat aerogel composites
because the composites must have a relatively large average pore size
to enable fluid transport therethrough (Br. 5).
[50] Appellant again relies on the Hrubesh Declaration for support (Br. 4).
[51] Dr. Hrubesh testified that both Pekala and Kaschmitter require a pore
size large enough so that electrolyte fluid can flow through the
electrode (Hrubesh Declaration 3).
[52] Dr. Hrubesh concludes that the large pore size of the composites
produced by Pekala and Kaschmitter excludes the composites from
being "monolithic" composites.
C. Discussion
The Examiner finds that Pekala teaches a method corresponding to the
method of claims 1 and 18 and concluded that it would have been obvious to
adjust parameters such as curing or pyrolysis times and temperatures to meet
the limitations of dependent claims 4 and 8 (Answer 2; Rejection 5). The
Examiner also maintains that it would have been obvious to use certain
aerogel precursor reagent ratios as taught by Kaschmitter to obtain high
capacitance from the carbon composite electrodes (Answer 2; Rejection 6).
Appellant only argues that the pore size of the carbon composite
electrodes produced by the Pekala/Kaschmitter method must be larger than
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013