Ex Parte Schlegel et al - Page 7

                Appeal 2007-4101                                                                               
                Application 09/962,972                                                                         
                      [T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim                         
                      makes determination of the patentability of the claim more                               
                      difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only                     
                      process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed                      
                      and not of the recited process steps which must be                                       
                      established….  [W]hen the prior art discloses a product which                            
                      reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly                          
                      different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim,                          
                      a rejection based alternatively one either section 102 or section                        
                      103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable.  As a                               
                      practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to                                   
                      manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it                            
                      and then obtain prior art products and make physical                                     
                      comparisons therewith.                                                                   

                Consistent with Brown, the Examiner has demonstrated that the pellet taught                    
                or suggested by Klabunde “reasonably appears to be either identical with or                    
                only slightly different than” the claimed pellet.  As indicated supra, there is                
                no dispute that Klabunde describes a pellet useful for a fluid medium, having                  
                the claimed ingredients, particle size and BET surface.  Klabunde also                         
                teaches preparing pellets in methods similar to that claimed (cols. 4-11,                      
                Examples 1-3).  Klabunde’s Examples 1 and 2 show forming powder from                           
                an aerogel and pressing the powder in a small hydraulic press at 1000 and                      
                2000 psi to make spherical pellets having a diameter of 12 mm (col. 4-9).                      
                The pellets formed are then activated at 500oC (Klabunde, cols. 6 and 7).                      
                Klabunde’s Example 3 also shows forming powder from “hydrating 99.99 %                         
                ultrapure metal oxide with excess distilled deionized water, heating it under                  
                a nitrogen flow forming metal hydroxide, removing the excess of water in                       
                the microwave” (col. 9, ll. 58-65).  The powder prepared in this manner,                       
                according to Klabunde, is compacted and activated (cols. 10 and 11, Table                      
                5).                                                                                            

                                                      7                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013