Appeal No. 2004-0681
Application No. 09/899,743
xerogels constant being the lowest)(e.g., see the paragraph
bridging columns 3 and 4, lines 38-45 in column 7 and the
paragraph bridging columns 7 and 8), we are convinced that the
Dixit reference anticipatorily discloses a method of the type
under consideration wherein the dielectric layer comprises
xerogels. See In re Sivaramakrishnan, 673 F.2d 1383, 1384-85,
213 USPQ 441, 442 (CCPA 1982) and In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312,
316-17, 197 USPQ 5, 9 (CCPA 1978).
Under these circumstances, there is no discernable relevance
in the appellants’ comment that patentee discloses xerogels
“without any hydrophobic or hydrophilic comments” (brief, page
3). This is because the xerogels of Dixit would necessarily
include hydrophobic pore surfaces just as do the appellants’
disclosed xerogels. We here remind the appellants of the well
established principle that, from the standpoint of patent law, a
compound and all of its properties are inseparable. In re
Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391, 137 USPQ 43, 51 (CCPA 1963).
The foregoing discussion leads us to the appellants’
previously quoted remark that “Dixit has no suggestion of the
plasma conversion of hydrophobic to hydrophilic” (brief, page 3).
Even if this remark is accurate, it does not resolve the
anticipation issue on appeal. It is well settled that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007