Appeal No. 1998-1178
Application 08/408,753
to the substrate, the layer is a titanium containing
quaternary perovskite.
Upon our review of Swartz, we observe that Swartz does
not indicate that the second layer is deposited on a
substrate. Swartz recommends that the second layer be
deposited on the first layer (column 3, lines 67-68 and
column 4, lines 1-4).
However, assuming arguendo that Swartz does suggest to
deposit the second layer on the substrate, the examiner has
not addressed what the second layer would be made of when
the first layer is a titanium containing quaternary
perovskite. We observe that possibly the examiner is
interpreting that when the titanium containing quaternary
perovskite layer is deposited on the substrate, the layer
comprises multiple layers of the same material, and that
this interpretation would meet appellants’ claim 1.
However, upon our review of the specification, for
example, on page 3, beginning at line 28 through page 4,
line 4, we observe that appellants' first and second layers
are not identical. See also Examples 1-7 on pages 7-11 of
appellants’ specification. Moreover, the method recited in
appellants’ claim 10 requires that the coating forming the
intermediate layer is sintered before the covering layer is
provided, which would then require that the layers are not
identical. Therefore, in this context, the examiner’s
interpretation of Swartz would not meet the limitations
found in appellants’ claim 1 and in claim 10.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007