Appeal No. 96-3394 Page 5
Application No. 08/178,748
thin layer of amorphous diamond-like carbon formed to cover the
plurality of insulating parts.
The examiner’s charge of “matter of choice in design” has
no credence here because, while the examiner contends that
appellant has offered no evidence of “criticality” for this
claimed limitation, the instant specification clearly indicates
why the use of this material has advantages over the prior art.
Page 11 of the specification indicates that a layer of
amorphous carbon deposited by a specific technique is employed
to get the low secondary electron emission rate, the
homogeneity and the very low conductivity sought by appellant.
Page 12 of the specification indicates that
Amorphous diamond-like carbon deposited in thin
layers by sputtering or by PECVD is perfectly
homogeneous and adheres to its support. It does
not generate any dust like chromium oxide paint.
Thus, the instant specification is full of advantages and
reasons, i.e., criticality, as the examiner calls it, as to why
appellant chooses to use amorphous diamond-like carbon.
Accordingly, the use of this material is more than a mere
design choice as alleged by the examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007