Appeal No. 1997-1619
Application No. 08/278,154
claimed invention.
1. Deschamps does not teach that the surface of the preformed article is
contacted with an encapsulation of a liquid material in an environment of
less than atmospheric pressure.
2. Deschamps does not teach that the encapsulation material, when
solidified, has sufficient strength to maintain the integrity and vacuum
characteristic of the at least one chamber. Instead, Deschamps teaches
the addition of a continuous, reflective layer (column 3, lines 24-43;
column 5, line 54, through column 6, line 3).
F. The examiner accounts for the differences between Deschamps and the
presently claimed invention.
1. The examiner acknowledges that Deschamps does not teach that the
surface of the article is encapsulated with a liquid material, but he argues
that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the
coating material used in the processes described by this reference would
have at least existed in a liquid state at some point during the formation of
continuous layer 17 described in column 3.”2
2October 11, 1996 Examiner’s Answer, paragraph bridging pp. 3 and 4.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007