Appeal No. 1997-1619
Application No. 08/278,154
2. With respect to the claim requirement that the encapsulating material has
sufficient strength to maintain the integrity and vacuum characteristic of
the at least one chamber, the examiner urges –
a. The encapsulating material in Deschamps “is air-tight since the
reference discloses the desirability of creating a vacuum condition
within the interior space of the chamber to lower thermal
conductivity (column 3, lines 10-13).”3
b. Deschamps teaches the capture of a vacuum within the article
“since column 3, lines 10-43 teaches that (1) the interior space of
the article can be evacuated to lower thermal conductivity, (2) the
interior space may be of a porous nature and (3) a desirable
method of applying a continuous coating is by vacuum
deposition.”4
Opinion
We reverse the rejection of claims 6-9 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Deschamps. The examiner has not met his burden of showing that the
claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made. See In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 1000,
50 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In particular, the evidence presented by the
3 Id.
4 Id., at p. 5, para. 1.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007