Appeal No. 1998-2643
Application 08/549,349
suggested the claimed limitations to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of appellants’ invention. By definition,
CVD or PECVD involves the deposition of coatings from the
reduction or disassociation of vapors of volatile stable
chemical compounds. The examiner has not presented any4
evidence or reasoning that plasma coating processes as taught
by Haluska apply the coating material in molten form, much
less shown the flame stream process steps and two coatings as
required by claim 32 on appeal.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has failed to present a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 32, and claims 33, 40 and
41 which stand or fall with claim 32, under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Haluska is reversed.
Claims 34-39 stand rejected under section 103 over
Haluska in view of Lantz (Answer, page 5). Lantz was applied
by the examiner to show ceramic coating compositions such as
those claimed by appellants (Answer, sentence bridging pages
4 See Kirk-Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology,
3rd ed., Vol. 10, pp. 266-67, 1980, and Vol. 20, pp. 47-48,
1982, John Wiley & Sons.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007