Appeal No. 2000-1041
Application No. 08/871,705
The examiner finds that Keem teaches “protective coatings
[which] comprise a plurality of superimposed multilayer units.”
Answer, page 5. However, the examiner has failed to provide any
evidence of a reason, suggestion or motivation for combining
Ovshinsky and Keem as proposed. See In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994,
999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Ovshinsky and Keem,
even by the examiner’s own findings, are directed to unrelated
subject matter. The examiner states that the “motivation for
depositing a multilayer coating at room temperature by utilizing
particular thicknesses and rf and dc magnetron sputtering is that
it allows for production of protective coatings” (Answer, page 7).
This is merely a restatement of the desire and objectives of Keem.
The examiner has failed to explain or show why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have used the disclosure and teachings of
Keem in the X-ray dispersive and reflective structures of
Ovshinsky.
The examiner also concludes that the combination of Ovshinsky
and Keem is obvious because “it is desired to form a film with low
deterioration properties” (Answer, page 9). However, the examiner
has failed to point out where Ovshinsky teaches that such a “low
deterioration” film is desired and why the protective film of Keem
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007