Appeal No. 1998-2308
Application No. 08/379,868
Scherer et al. because it is desired to deposit largely
disturbance free dielectric coatings. [Id. at p. 11.]
Because Quazi and Scherer are cited only to show the particular
waveform recited in the appealed claims, it follows then that our
comments concerning rejections II and III are also pertinent for this
rejection as applied to appealed claims 10 through 12. Moreover, it
is our judgment that the examiner’s
position is without merit. As pointed out by the appellant
(substitute appeal brief, page 14), Quazi relates to methods that use
a sinusoidal waveform as opposed to a generally square wave voltage
as recited in the appealed claims. (Column 6, lines 39-45.) Also,
the examiner has not identified any teaching or suggestion in
Scherer, much less a reasoned explanation, why the teachings of this
reference are pertinent to a method that uses a generally square
waveform as recited in the appealed claims. Absent specific evidence
of a motivation or suggestion and the requisite reasonable
expectation of success from the prior art to combine these
references, the examiner’s rejection cannot be sustained.
For these reasons, we must also reverse the examiner’s
rejection of appealed claims 10 through 12 and 20 through 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the applied prior art.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007