Appeal No. 1997-2859
Application 08/340,676
condition. Appellants want the Examiner to read into the
claims limitations from the specification. This, the Examiner
has correctly not done. Therefore, we sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 15 over Hilton.
As to claim 16, Appellants argue [brief, pages 8 to 9]
that “Applicants’ reference to removing particles recites that
unbonded areas between the layers can be prevented ...” The
Examiner [final rejection, page 3] asserts that “it is an
inherent step in any optical manufacturing process to clean
the components in order to eliminate contaminants which may
degrade the ability of the optics to function properly.” We
agree with the Examiner’s rationale. Moreover, we also note
that the very nature of direct bonding inherently requires
that particles be removed from the contacting surfaces for a
strong direct bond. We, therefore, sustain the anticipation
rejection of claim 16 over Hilton.
With respect to claim 18, after reviewing the arguments
of Appellants [brief, page 9] and of Examiner [final
rejection, page 3], we find that Hilton does anticipate claim
18 since Hilton discloses its device being used in harsh
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007