Appeal No. 96-1770
Application No. 08/296,307
In our view, the examiner has not established that the
process steps of the claims on appeal are the same as the
steps disclosed by Porter. The method of appealed claim 1
requires that the admixture of organosilicon and organotin is
contacted with the metal surface “at said reduced
decomposition temperature . . ." to thereby deposit silicon
thereon. The examiner has failed to point to any disclosure
or teaching in Porter of contacting the admixture of compounds
at a reduced decomposition temperature. Although not
discussed by the examiner, Porter does disclose that the
antifoulant admixture is applied to the metal surface and then
treated by heating to 700EC. in air for one minute “to
decompose the antifoulant to its oxide . . . ” (column 8,
lines 30-36). However, Porter teaches the same decomposition
temperature for the organosilicon compound per se as used for
the organosilicon and organotin admixture (see Example 1 in
column 8, solutions C and D). Even if there was evidence of
record as to the decomposition temperature of the
organosilicon compounds (specifically tetraethylorthosilicate,
see solution C), this disclosure by Porter of the same
treating temperature for organosilicon compounds and the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007