Ex Parte MORIZANE - Page 2



         Appeal No. 1999-0787                                                       
         Application No. 08/813,953                                                 

              1.  A method for producing a metal oxide film, which                  
              comprises: subjecting a hydrolyzable organic metal                    
              compound to hydrolysis in a mixed solution consisting                 
              of water and organic solvent, containing halogen ions                 
              and boron ions followed by dehydration and condensation               
              to obtain a reaction product; thereafter, applying the                
              reaction product onto the surface of a base material;                 
              and maintaining said reaction product at a temperature                
              of 200ēC or below to obtain said metal oxide film.                    
                      REFERENCE RELIED UPON BY THE EXAMINER                         
         Kondo et al. (Kondo)           5,160,358           Nov. 3, 1992            
                                   THE REJECTIONS                                   
              Claims 1-3 and 7 stand rejected as follows: under 35 U.S.C.           
         § 101, as being inoperable, and under 35 U.S.C. § 112, enablement          
         and written description requirements.                                      
                                      OPINION                                       
              We reverse the aforementioned rejections.                             
                       Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and                         
                      35 U.S.C. § 112, enablement requirement                       
              Before utility, which is a question of fact, is determined,           
         the claims must be interpreted as a matter of law to define the            
         invention to be tested for utility.  See Raytheon Co. v. Roper             
         Corp., 724 F.2d 951, 956, 220 USPQ 592, 596 (Fed. Cir. 1983),              










Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007