Appeals 2006-2874 and 2006-2747
Applications 08/544,212 and 09/287,664
Patent 5,401,305
1 The reader will appreciate that both applications on appeal contain
2 claims numbered 28, 29, 31 and 32.
3
4 Examiner’s rejection
5 In both applications, the Examiner rejected all claims as being
6 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 251 based on “improper recapture”
7 [Examiner’s Answer, page 3 (Appeal 2006-2684); Examiner’s Answer,
8 page 5 (Appeal 2006-2747)].
9 We address the claims on an individual basis.
10
11 C. Analysis of recapture issues
12
13 Claim 28 (Appeal 2006-2684)
14 Claim 28 (Appeal 2006-2684) reads as follows:
15 A gaseous composition comprising at least
16 one precursor of a metal oxide, an accelerant
17 selected from the group consisting of organic
18 phosphates, organic borates, and water, and a
19 precursor of silicon oxide having the formula
20 RmOnSip, where m is from 3 to 8, n is from 1 to 4,
21 p is from 1 to 4 and R is independently chosen
22 from hydrogen and . . . [certain organic radicals],
23 wherein said composition is gaseous at a
24 temperature below about 200ēC at atmospheric
25 pressure and is adapted to deposit at least a first
26 layer of an oxide and silicon oxide onto a glass at a
27 rate of deposition greater than 350 Ǻ/sec.
28
29 For some reason, claim 28 does not track the language of claim 1 of
30 the patent with a mere amendment of tin oxide to metal oxide. Rather, it is
31 re-written with limitations appearing in a different order.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013