Appeal No. 94-3447
Application 07/864,725
the fluidized bed can be comprised of . . . the same material as
the bed particles” (page 7 of specification, lines 30-33). When
appellants’ process employs the same material for the substrate
and the bed particles, we fully concur with the examiner that it
is reasonable to conclude that there is no patentable distinction
between the claimed process and the process disclosed by Pinneo.
In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.
1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA
1977). While appealed claim 1 recites that the substrate has
“different dimensions” than the bed particles, we agree with the
examiner that among the multitude of substrate particles within
Pinneo’s fluidized bed there would be, of necessity, particles of
different dimensions.
Regarding the claim 6 requirement that the substrate is an
optical surface of silicon and the like, we agree with the
examiner that this feature is met by Pinneo’s disclosure of
silicon substrate particles. The examiner correctly explains
that the broadly claimed “optical surface” encompasses any
surface that is reflecting, transparent, refractive, etc.
The examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 11-15 is another
matter. These claims require that the substrate and the bed
particles are of a different material. Pinneo does not disclose
such, and we agree with appellants that one of ordinary skill in
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007