Appeal No. 1998-2643
Application 08/549,349
device by coating the substrate with a solution of a solvent,
hydrogen silsesquioxane resin and a modified ceramic oxide
precursor, evaporating the solvent, and ceramifying by heating
to 40 to 1000EC. (Answer, paragraph bridging pages 4-5). The
examiner further finds that Haluska teaches that additional
passivation and barrier layer coatings may be deposited by
methods including chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and plasma-
enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD)(Answer, page 5).
The examiner states that it is “well recognized” in the
coating art that the coating material applied by plasma
coating techniques is “liquified” or made molten prior to
application to the substrate (Final Rejection, Paper No. 8,
page 4, paragraph two). From these findings, the examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to have applied the
coating materials of Haluska in a molten state (Answer, page
5). The examiner has construed the claims as “broad enough”
to read upon the primer coating by evaporation and subsequent
coatings by PECVD as taught by Haluska (Answer, page 8).
Implicit in our review of the examiner’s obviousness
analysis is that the claim must first have been correctly
construed to define the scope and meaning of each contested
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007