Appeal No. 2001-0769
Application No. 09/237,791
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
1) Claims 30, 31, 35 through 39 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Goodman and Blecherman; and
2) Claims 32 through 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures
of Goodman, Blecherman and Brixner.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and prior art, including all of the
evidence and arguments advanced by both the examiner and appellants in support of their respective
positions. This review leads us to conclude that the examiner’s Section 103 rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s Section 103 rejections for essentially
those reasons set forth in the Brief. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
The claimed subject matter is directed to a vapor deposition process for forming an
anisotropic, auto-collimating imaging screen. See claim 30. This vapor deposition process requires,
inter alia, positioning a substrate fixture (32) at an oblique angle to the exit port (21) of a vapor
generator (15). See claim 30 together with the specification, page 4, lines 1-7 and Figure 1. By
positioning the substrate fixture in this manner, substrates (34) are placed at an oblique angle to the
exit port (21) of the vapor generator (15) during the entire vapor deposition process. See, e.g., the
Brief, page 7 and Figure 1. This arrangement, according to page 4, lines 1-7, of the specification, is
said to improve “uniformity of the coating thickness.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007