Appeal No. 1999-1792
Application No. 08/879,477
with the Examiner that Lee discloses the temperature range as
"below 150°C for the first layer to obtain small grain [size]
and high surface energy, . . . and higher . . . temperature but
lower than below 350°C [for the second layer]", see Examiner's
answer at page 6. However, we again disagree with the Examiner
when Examiner uses the teachings of MacNaughton to modify the
temperature range disclosed by Lee. Therefore, for the same
rationale as above, we are of the view that the combination of
Lee and MacNaughton is not justified. APA does not add any
rationale to further justify the combination of MacNaughton and
Lee. Therefore, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 1-8, 12, 13, 14-21, 24, and 27-29 over Lee, APA and
MacNaughton.
Finally, we note parenthetically that the Examiner has
made certain other allegations. For example, answer at page 11
alleges that the original disclosed temperature range for the
disclosed process was between 30° and 80°C, and was later
changed to between 40°C and 80°; and answer at pages 11 and 12
alleges that the results in Figure 2C of the disclosure are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims. However, according
to the guidelines above, in making our decision, we have only
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007