Ex parte Purinton et al.Download PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 18, 199908273040 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 18, 1999) Copy Citation Application for patent filed July 8, 1994. 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opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 22 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte DONALD L. PURINTON and LOUIS R. SEMFF ____________ Appeal No. 97-1417 Application No. 08/273,0401 ____________ ON BRIEF ____________ Before JOHN D. SMITH, HANLON, and ROBINSON, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims 1-19 and 21, all of the claims pending in the application. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows: 1. A radome comprising: Appeal No. 97-1417 Application No. 08/273,040 2 (a) an exterior wall, said wall including: (i) a central region of porous material comprising a ceramic material impregnated with an inorganic resin and having a pair of opposing exterior surfaces; and (ii) a skin overlying each of said opposing surfaces to form a composite structure, said skin comprising a first cloth of ceramic material impregnated with an inorganic resin which, under pyrolysis, provides an elemental carbon-free material and, with increased temperature, gradually converts from the liquid state to a resilient state and then to a solid state by about 1200°F. The references relied upon by the examiner are: Boyd et al. (Boyd) 5,134,421 Jul. 28, 1992 Liimatta et al. (Liimatta) 5,198,152 Mar. 30, 1993 The sole issue on appeal is whether the examiner properly rejected claims 1-19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Boyd and Liimatta. Discussion Claim 1 is directed to a radome comprising an exterior wall including: (1) a central region of porous material comprising a ceramic material impregnated with an inorganic resin and having a pair of opposing exterior surfaces; and Appeal No. 97-1417 Application No. 08/273,040 3 (2) a skin overlying each of the opposing surfaces whereby the skin comprises a ceramic material impregnated with an inorganic resin which, under pyrolysis, provides an elemental carbon-free material and, with increased temperature, gradually converts from the liquid state to a resilient state and then to a solid state by about 1200EF. The inorganic resin is preferably a polysilazane or a polysiloxane (Specification, p.3). According to the examiner (Answer, p.3): Boyd et al discloses a radome comprising a honeycomb or foam layer laminated with face sheets of resin impregnated-fiber reinforced material and the use of ceramic materials for these layers; see column 2, lines 18-40 and the paragraph bridging columns 5 and 6. However, Boyd et al do not disclose the particular claimed materials used to form the fiber reinforced layers . . . . Liimatta et al discloses the use of polysilizane [sic, polysilazane] materials as an infiltrant in ceramic fiber reinforced composites which may be used in radomes; see column 1, lines 13-18 and 49-50, column 2, lines 65-67 and column 4, lines 42-49. The examiner continues (Answer, p.4): Ii [sic, It] is the examiner's position that since Liimatta et al disclose the same impregnate as that disclosed by appellant, namely polysilizane [sic, polysilazane], that the claimed property under Appeal No. 97-1417 Application No. 08/273,040 4 pyrolysis is inherent in the Liimatta et al impregnate. However, appellants argue that the polysilazanes in Liimatta are not the same as those claimed. More specifically (Brief, pp.5-6): Claim 1 requires a skin comprising a first cloth of ceramic material impregnated with an inorganic resin which, under pyrolysis, provides an elemental carbon-free material and, with increased temperature, gradually converts from the liquid state to a resilient state and then to a solid state by about 1200EF. Even further, nowhere in Liimatta et al. is there a teaching or even a suggestion that the materials taught therein are limited to those "which, under pyrolysis, provides an elemental carbon-free material and, with increased temperature, gradually converts from the liquid state to a resilient state and then to a solid state by about 1200EF". [Emphasis added.] Manifestly, the resins disclosed in Liimatta are organic. According to Liimatta, the disclosed invention is directed to (Abstract): A crosslinkable preceramic composition suitable for use as an infiltrant for porous ceramics, such as fiber-reinforced ceramic composites, comprises about 75-99% by weight of a low molecular weight polysilazane and about 1-25% by weight of an unsaturated organic or organosilicon compound containing at least two alkenyl groups, preferably methylvinylcyclosilazane. Appeal No. 97-1417 Application No. 08/273,040 Claims 2-19 and 21 are dependent on independent2 claim 1. See 37 CFR § 1.75(c) ("Claims in dependent form shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim."). 5 The examiner has failed to explain how the organic compositions disclosed in Liimatta provide an elemental carbon-free material under pyrolysis. Absent a more factually specific statement of the rejection, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1-19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as2 being unpatentable over the combination of Boyd and Liimatta. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability). Based on the record before us, the decision of the examiner is reversed. REVERSED Appeal No. 97-1417 Application No. 08/273,040 6 JOHN D. SMITH ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) ) BOARD OF PATENT ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON ) APPEALS Administrative Patent Judge ) AND ) INTERFERENCES ) ) ) DOUGLAS W. ROBINSON ) Administrative Patent Judge ) lp Appeal No. 97-1417 Application No. 08/273,040 7 GLENN H. LENZEN RAYTHEON COMPANY OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 141 SPRING STREET MAIL STOP 1-1 LEXINGTON, MA 02173 Leticia Appeal No. 97-1417 Application No. 08/273,040 APJ HANLON APJ ROBINSON APJ JOHN D. SMITH DECISION: Send Reference(s): Yes No or Translation (s) Panel Change: Yes No Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s): _____ Prepared: April 13, 2000 Draft Final 3 MEM. CONF. Y N OB/HD GAU PALM / ACTS 2 / BOOK DISK (FOIA) / REPORT Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation