Appeal No. 1998-2643
Application 08/549,349
limitation. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1460 n.3,
43 USPQ2d 1030, 1035 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The method of
claim 32 on appeal requires that the particles of a first and
second coating composition are applied to a flame stream which
is at a temperature sufficient to place the particles in a
molten state before passing the flame stream across the
integrated circuit in successive passes to build a specific
thickness layer. The method of claim 32 does recite the
transition term “comprising” which opens the claim to
additional unrecited elements and steps. See Moleculon
Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1271, 229 USPQ
805, 812 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In view of the claim construction discussed above, we
determine that the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness in view of Haluska. Although the
evaporative primer coating deposited by Haluska is not
excluded from the claimed subject matter on appeal, the
examiner has not presented any convincing evidence or
reasoning why the CVD or PECVD disclosed by Haluska for
subsequent passivation and barrier coatings would have
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007