Appeal No. 1998-1416 Page 5
Application No. 08/062,736
19 and 34-40 of Jones. Hence, Jones anticipates the method
recited in appealed claims 18 and 19. Regarding dependent claim
25, Jones (column 4, lines 41-44) describes the use of an
electron beam in evaporating the coating and consequently
anticipates that claim, as well.
Appellants refer to Table 5 of Jones in the brief and reply2
brief and essentially urge that Jones only teaches the use of
aluminum oxide as part of a mixture, such as Alundum. However,3
the teachings of Jones are clearly not limited to the working
examples. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n. 1, 215 USPQ
569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192
USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976). As correctly determined by the
examiner (answer, page 6), Jones does reasonably describe the use
of aluminum trioxide as a coating material.
Appellants (brief, page 9) acknowledge that Jones teaches
the deposited inorganic coating “must have a thickness greater
than 0.02 microns to be effective.” Concerning this matter, it
is well settled that the disclosure in the prior art of any value
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007