Appeal 2007-1938
Application 10/050,437
100 nm for the electrodes to work (Br. 4-5; Hrubesh Declaration 4). Since,
according to Appellant, monolithic foam/mat aerogel composites must have
pore sizes less 100 nm, the method of Pekala/Kaschmitter cannot teach or
suggest the claimed method (id.).
As discussed above, Appellant has failed to provide evidence
sufficient to establish a pore size of less than 100 nm as a proxy definition of
the "monolithic glassy carbon material" recited as the goal of the claimed
method. Analogous to the above discussion, Appellant has failed to provide
a sufficient basis from which to conclude that the Pekala/Kaschmitter
method would not have been reasonably expected to produce a monolithic
glassy carbon material given that Pekala/Kaschmitter teaches using the same
materials and method steps. Moreover, Pekala teaches a carbon aerogel
foam composite electrode having a density of ~ 600 kg/m-3 (FF 45) which
appear comparable to the ~ 150 kg/m3 density of the silicon aerogels
disclosed by Lu (FF 38). In short, Appellant has not submitted evidence and
arguments sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness set forth by
the Examiner.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, we will affirm the rejection of
claims 1, 4, 8 and 18 under § 103(a) as obvious over Pekala in view of
Kaschmitter.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the decision of the Examiner to reject (i) claims 1 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Droege; (ii) claims 4 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Droege; and, (iii) claims 1, 4, 8 and 18
as under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Pekala in view of Kaschmitter
is affirmed.
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013