Appeal No. 96-3649
Application 08/344,509
suggests the vapor deposition of a stoichiometric hetero-
metaloxide film by subjecting a vaporized precursor to an ?SN2?
reaction as in appealed claims 24 through 29 (appellants
apparently refer to the reaction mechanism referred to as S 2 and
N
known as substitution nucleophilic bimolecular mechanism) , it3
would appear that this mechanism would have been expected by a
person of ordinary skill in the art for the hydrolysis reaction
in question based on the structure of the known double metal
alkoxides. Compare the specification at page 5, lines 7 through
15.
In passing, we observe that the thrust of many of the
arguments in appellants’ Brief and indeed the disclosure in
appellants’ specification is that prior art workers have not
known how to apply vapor deposition technology, notably vapor
phase hydrolysis, to double alkoxide precursors to produce large
crystals containing the same stoichiometric ratio of metals that
exist in the precursor. In the event of any subsequent
prosecution of this application, the examiner may wish to
consider the propriety of a rejection of the appealed claims
under 35 USC § 112, first paragraph, ?enablement requirement?,
3 See Organic Chemistry, Morrison and Boyd, pages 370-375, 1959, copy
attached.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007