Ex parte Pekala et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 14, 1998

08110003 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 14, 1998)

Application for patent filed August 23, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is
not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 11
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte RICHARD W. PEKALA, STEVEN T. MAYER,
JAMES L. KASCHMITTE and ROBERT L. MORRISON
__________
Appeal No. 96-0158
Application No. 08/110,0031
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before KIMLIN, GARRIS and WEIFFENBACH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the final rejection
of claims 1, 2, 11, 12 and 15. The only other claims
remaining in the application, which are claims 3, 4, 6, 8-10,
Appeal No. 96-0158
Application No. 08/110,003
2
13, 14, 16, 17 and 20-29 have either been allowed or objected
to but otherwise allowable.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method for
making carbon foam which comprises uniformly infiltrating a
porous material substrate with a carbon foam precursor
material until the porous material is saturated and curing the
thus saturated porous and precursor materials. This appealed
subject matter is adequately illustrated by independent claim
1 which reads as follows:
1. A method for making carbon foam having a thickness
of 1 to 40 mils, comprising the steps of:
uniformly infiltrating a porous material substrate having
a density of less than 0.2g/cc with a carbon foam precursor
material until the porous material is saturated
curing the thus saturated porous and precursor materials;
and
pyrolyzing the thus cured materials.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Marek et al. (Marek) 3,922,334 Nov. 25,
1975
Appeal No. 96-0158
Application No. 08/110,003
The appealed claims will stand or fall together; see2
page 5 of the Brief.
3
Vinton et al. (Vinton) 3,927,186 Dec. 16,
1975
Simandl et al. (Simandl) 5,208,003 May
4, 1993
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Marek taken with Vinton and
Simandl .2
We refer to the Brief and to the Answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and the examiner concerning the above noted
rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the Answer and below, we
will sustain this rejection.
We fully agree with the conclusion of obviousness stated
by the examiner in his Answer. As for the nonobviousness
position expressed in the Brief, it is the appellants’ basic
argument
Appeal No. 96-0158
Application No. 08/110,003
4
that the applied references generally and the Marek patent
specifically contain no teaching or suggestion of the here
claimed feature of uniformly infiltrating a porous material
substrate with a carbon foam precursor material until the
porous material is saturated and curing the thus saturated
porous and precursor materials. Indeed, the appellants
contend that “Marek ... actually teaches away from saturation
by removing the excess solution by ‘pressing’ and/or ‘air-
drying’ prior to curing” (Brief, page 7; emphasis in
original). We cannot agree with the appellants.
As properly indicated by the examiner, appealed claim 1
does not exclude a pressing or drying step. Indeed, the
subject specification expressly discloses a drying step (e.g.,
see the first paragraph on specification page 6). In any
event, the method disclosed by Marek does not require a
pressing or drying step (e.g., see the patent claims which
recite no such steps and note lines 55-56 in column 2 wherein
patentee discloses that “[a]fter removing the soaked form, it
... may be pressed” (emphasis added)). Finally, it is our
finding that the pressing step disclosed by Marek is not for
the purpose of desaturation as the appellants essentially
Appeal No. 96-0158
Application No. 08/110,003
5
contend but instead is for the purpose of removing excess
solution and to rupture any solution membranes that may have
formed in the pores during the soak (e.g., see line 56 in
column 2 and lines 27 through 31 in column 4).
In this latter regard, we emphasize that the soaking step
of Marek is intended to ensure that his carbon foam precursor
material is absorbed into the polyurethane strands of his
porous material substrate to thereby become an integral part
of such strands and not simply a coating (e.g., see lines 50
through 55 in column 2). Toward that end, patentee’s soaking
step may be for a period of time up to four hours or longer
(e.g., see lines 44 and 45 in column 3). By ensuring that his
solution absorbs into the polyurethane strands so as to fully
penetrate the structure (see lines 4 through 6 and 13 through
18 in column 3), patentee achieves a carbonized foam of
superior mechanical properties (see lines 20 through 24 in
column 2) relative to prior art techniques in which the carbon
precursor material simply coated the foam structure (see lines
36 through 66 in column 1 and the paragraph bridging columns 1
and 2).
Appeal No. 96-0158
Application No. 08/110,003
6
In short, it is our view that the disclosure of Marek
teaches or at least would have suggested soaking or uniformly
infiltrating his porous polyurethane material with his carbon
precursor solution until the porous material is saturated (and
then curing the thus saturated porous and precursor materials)
in order to achieve the absorption and penetration necessary
to obtain a carbonized foam having superior mechanical
properties as desired by patentee. Stated otherwise, the
infiltrating and curing steps of the independent claims on
appeal are indistinguishable from or at least would have been
obvious over the soaking and curing steps of Marek.
In light of the foregoing, we hereby sustain the
examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 11, 12 and 15 as
being unpatentable over Marek taken with Vinton and Simandl.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Appeal No. 96-0158
Application No. 08/110,003
7
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge)
)
)
)
BRADLEY R. GARRIS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
CAMERON WEIFFENBACH )
Administrative Patent Judge)
bae
Appeal No. 96-0158
Application No. 08/110,003
8
Henry P. Sartorio
Deputy Laboratory Counsel of Patents
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808-L-703
Livermore, CA 94551