Appeal No. 95-4632
Application No. 08/184,675
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pebler in view of Vest and Chen as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-
9 and 14 above, and further in view of Matsuki and Nonaka.
DELIBERATIONS
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the appellant's
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions articulated
by the appellant and the examiner. We make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 14,
mailed June 22, 1995) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
appellant's brief (Paper No. 13, filed April 26, 1995) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
On consideration of the record, including the above-listed materials, we reverse all three of the
examiner's prior art rejections.
DISCUSSION
1. Rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-9 and 14 as unpatentable over Pebler in view of Vest and Chen
Independent claim 1 on appeal recites a method of forming a thin film of a lead titanate ceramic
on a substrate wherein, after forming a complex alkoxide from precursor source compounds, the
complex alkoxide, i.e. complexed lead (zirconate) titanate, is dissolved in water to prepare an
aqueous solution of the complex alkoxide, into which aqueous solution a substrate is then immersed.
Page 4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007