Appeal No. 1996-2086
Application 08/255,588
The examiner’s argument regarding how one of ordinary skill in the art would have
3
interpreted “thermal deposition” is reasonable. For this reason and because appellant
has not provided evidence or reasoning which shows that such a person would have
interpreted the term differently, I conclude that the invention recited in appellant’s claim 10
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, I would affirm the rejection of this claim over the applied
prior art.
___________________ ) BOARD OF PATENT
Terry J. Owens ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
3See, e.g., 8 McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology 336-37
(McGraw-Hill 1971) (“Vapor deposition. A thin specular coating is formed on metals,
plastics, paper, glass, and even fabrics. Coatings form by condensation of metal vapor
originating from molten metal . . . .” (A copy is provided to appellant with this decision.)
17
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007