Appeal No. 1998-2309 Page 13
Application No. 08/277,035
deposited "directly" on the electrode. We agree with
appellants (brief, page 14) that the recitation 'consisting
essentially of' in the preamble of claim 21 "precludes the use
of additional method steps that would fundamentally alter the
claimed process."
We find that the embodiment of Swartz (col. 19, lines 9-
48) that uses BST as the second layer does not anticipate or
render obvious claim 21 because the first layer (interlayer)
materially affects the process of manufacture. We
additionally find that the embodiment of Swartz (col. 8, lines
19-32) that discloses the depositing of dual constituent
layers that form the desired film during the annealing
process, does not anticipate or render obvious the method step
of providing a liquid precursor of barium strontium and
titanium in a common solution, and depositing the precursor on
the electrode, as required by claim 21.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 14, 15, 17, 18, 20,
and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), or in the alternative, under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007