Appeal No. 2000-0038
Application 08/751,369
(col. 13, lines 45-48) (brief, pages 14-16; reply brief, page 3).
Heming’s disclosure, however, is not limited to the preferred
embodiment or to the examples. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d
792, 794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Kohler,
475 F.2d 651, 653, 177 USPQ 399, 400 (CCPA 1973); In re Mills,
470 F.2d 649, 651, 176 USPQ 196, 198 (CCPA 1972); In re Bozek,
416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969). Instead, all
disclosures in the reference must be evaluated for what they
would have fairly suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
The disclosures by Heming discussed above would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, using reactive DC
sputtering to form a waveguide layer on a synthetic resin
substrate.
The appellants argue that Heming’s preference for PCVD and
PICVD indicates that ion sputtering is not a valuable method for
depositing the waveguide layer (brief, page 15). This argument
is incorrect because Heming teaches that ion-enhanced PVD
processes are effective for forming the waveguide layer (col. 6,
lines 12-18).
The appellants argue that it is not clear why, in view of
the fact that ion sputtering such as reactive DC sputtering was
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007