Appeal No. 96-1515
Application 08/161/859
support in the original specification for the claim recitation
that the densified outermost surface is in contact with
outside air.
With respect to the examiner’s second argument in
support of this rejection, appellants argue that the densified
region of their invention has the same composition as the
resin enclosure because the resin enclosure is treated with a
“non-product” or “inert” gas. We agree with appellants that
the examiner has failed to appreciate that there are two
different embodiments of the invention disclosed. A first
embodiment is shown in Figure 2(A) in which a densified region
of the resin enclosure is exposed to outside air. This
densified region is of the same composition as the resin
enclosure because it is formed by treating the enclosure
surface with a plasma of an inert gas. The examiner has
improperly looked to the second embodiment of the invention
for support of the “same composition” limitation. The second
embodiment shown in Figure 2(B) has a protective film formed
on the densified region. The composition of this protective
film is not relevant to the densified region as set forth in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007