Appeal No. 2005-1693
Application No. 10/192,333
871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Thus, it is not fatal to the rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) that
Warby does not disclose the claimed thermal CVD process. As discussed above, the examiner
relies on the teachings of Gleason to establish that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to coat the components of the medicinal inhalation device disclosed in Warby with
a fluorocarbon polymer film using a thermal CVD process.
The appellant further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected
the benefits of the thermal CVD process disclosed in Gleason to be applicable in the context of
medicinal inhalation devices. Brief at 5.
We disagree. The examiner points out that the coatings formed by the thermal CVD
process disclosed in Gleason are stable, chemically resistant, and have a low coefficient of
friction in comparison to coatings formed by prior continuous plasma methods. See Answer at 4,
5-6. Furthermore, Gleason discloses that the thermal CVD process produces a film having a
relatively high CF2 fractionality and a low degree of crosslinking in contrast to a film formed by
a continuous plasma CVD process. See, e.g., Gleason at 27, lines 23-26; see also Gleason at 29,
lines 18-20 (a low cross-linking density enables a high degree of flexibility in the deposited
films).
We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered these properties
desirable in a film used to coat the components of a medicinal inhalation device, such as the
medicinal inhalation device disclosed in Warby. Compare appellant’s specification at 7, lines
23-27 (fluorocarbon (CF2)n-type polymer thin films formed by claimed process have a high
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007