Appeal 2007-0108
Application 10/698,884
formation of the film may occur simultaneously with the irradiation, the
claim language does not necessitate that the irradiation must occur while the
carrier gas with suspended donor compound is passing over the substrate,
i.e., during forming of the film” (Answer 3, last paragraph). In our view,
when the language of claim 1 is given its broadest reasonable interpretation
in light of the specification, the “wherein” clause implicitly requires that the
step of irradiating the donor compound takes place as the carrier gas/donor
compound passes over the substrate. To conclude otherwise would result in
the “wherein” clause having no meaning. Manifestly, such a meaningless
interpretation would not be within the requirement for a reasonable
interpretation of the claim language. Moreover, even if we were to accept
the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim 1 language, the claim still requires
that the intensity of the optical radiation is insufficient to cause significant
photolytic breakdown of the molecules of the donor compound when, or if,
they are suspended in a carrier gas, i.e., the “wherein” clause is a limitation
on the magnitude of the intensity of the optical radiation. Since the
Examiner has provided no rationale why it would have been obvious for one
of ordinary skill in the art to control the intensity of the optical radiation of
Polanyi such that it is insufficient to cause significant photolytic breakdown
of molecules of the donor compound, we are constrained to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection.
We now turn to the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 23-25.
Polanyi provides no teaching or suggestion of irradiating the donor
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007