Appeal No. 1996-3816 Page 6
Application No. 08/293,331
the process of claims 1-5, 12, and 13 of Mine . We answer 2
this
question in the affirmative.
Although Mine does not claim the product of the process
of claims 1-5, 12, and 13, the resulting product of Mine's
process would be indistinguishable from the here claimed
product since the process steps are essentially the same as in
appealed claims 54-56. In this regard, we note that the
appealed claims describe the coated electronic device product
in terms of the method of making the device.
Appealed claim 54 calls for an electronic device to be
coated with a solution of solvent and hydrogen silsesquioxane
resin with the solvent being evaporated to deposit a
preceramic coating, which coating is heated to a temperature
of between about 500 up to about 800°C in an inert atmosphere
2According to the assignment records of the Patent and
Trademark Office, an assignment of the Mine patent to Dow
Corning Corporation was recorded on July 25, 1997. The real
party in interest (assignee) of the present application
identified by appellant at page 1 of the brief is Dow Corning
Corporation. Accordingly, consideration of an obviousness-type
double
patenting rejection is appropriate by virtue of the common
assignee notwithstanding the different inventive entities
between the Mine patent and the present application.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007