Appeal No. 2001-0162
Application 08/824,594
optical element in claim 8. Appellants argue that the term
“chemically bonded” has a definite meaning to those skilled in
the art to require more than mere adhesion but rather a chemical
reaction between the coating and the surface of the window or
optical element. The Appellants have provided the McGraw . .
Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, Fourth
Edition, as evidence for this meaning.
Appellants point out that Chiklis does not teach or suggest
chemical bonding as to require a chemical reaction between the
coating and the surface of the window or optical element.
Appellants point out that Chiklis teaches adhesion only.
In view of this interpretation of the term “chemically
bonded” to mean a chemical reaction between the atoms of the
coating and the atoms of the surface of the window or optical
element, we thereby find that Chiklis does not teach or suggest
the claimed limitation “a fluorinated coating chemically bonded
to at least one surface of said” window in claim 1 and optical
element in claim 8. Therefore we reverse the rejection of claim
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007