Ex parte REED et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 96-1770                                                          
          Application No. 08/296,307                                                  


          examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 14, which are                
          the only claims in this application.                                        
               According to appellants, the invention is directed to a                
          method of controlling the decomposition temperature of an                   
          organosilicon compound by adding an organotin compound in                   
          order to improve the laydown of silicon upon metal surfaces                 
          (Brief, page 2).  Illustrative claim 1 is reproduced below:                 
               1.  A method of promoting the decomposition of an                      
          organosilicon compound, said organosilicon compound having a                
          decomposition temperature required to achieve a given                       
          percentage decomposition, in a process for depositing silicon               
          upon a metal surface, said method comprising the steps of:                  
               admixing with said organosilicon compound an organotin                 
          compound in an amount effective to lower said decomposition                 
          temperature of said organosilicon compound to a reduced                     
          decomposition temperature required to achieve said given                    
          percentage decomposition to form an admixture; and                          
               contacting said admixture with said metal surface at said              
          reduced decomposition temperature to thereby deposit silicon                
          thereon.                                                                    
               The examiner has relied upon the following reference as                
          evidence of obviousness:                                                    
          Porter et al. (Porter)         4,692,234          Sep. 8, 1987              
               Claims 1 through 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103               
          as unpatentable over Porter (Answer, page 3, citing the final               
          rejection dated Mar. 21, 1995, Paper No. 5).  We reverse this               
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007