Appeal No. 2002-2249
Application 09/340,441
respect to glow polymerization conditions or treatment, including time or rate of advance, would
be made with respect to the entire run.
In comparing the teachings of Stewart with the method of appealed claim 15, we note
here the interpretation we gave the term “a surface” in the preamble of appealed claim 1 and the
language “at least one surface” in the body of that claim to include coating of any portion of a
surface of an implantable device (see above pp. 2-3), which applies to appealed claim 15
dependent thereon. In stating the ground of rejection here and in responding thereto, neither the
examiner nor appellants focused on whether the appealed claims encompass methods that
continuously treat a part of the surface of an implantable device as it travels through a monomer
deposition zone for about 10 minutes or less at the specific power level for the thus treated part
of the surface, or are limited to a batch treatment of a part of that surface in such zone. Indeed,
the examiner recognizes that the methods of Stewart treat 3.2 inches of tubing a minute in a
continuous manner but bases the case for prima facie obviousness on treating the entire length of
tubing for about 10 minutes or less. In somewhat similar manner, the appellants consider that the
method of Stewart “sequentially treats sections of polymeric tubing,” apparently sort of mini-
batching the tube run into sections which are separately so treated in the monomer deposition
zone, and base the case for nonobviousness on treating the entire length of tubing for about 10
minutes or less.
Accordingly, upon carefully considering the record now before us, we must conclude on
this basis that the examiner has failed to establish that the claimed method as encompassed by
appealed claim 15 is prima facie obvious over Stewart, and accordingly reverse the ground of
rejection of appealed claims 15 and 16 under § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stewart.
The examiner focuses the principal issues in the ground of rejection of claim 5 under
§ 103(a) over the combined teachings of Ovshinsky and Loh as whether one of ordinary skill in
this art would have modified the teachings of Ovshinsky by increasing the power level used to
coat lenses from glass and plastic optical substrates with a mixture of a hydrocarbon as a single
reactant monomer and inert gas using glow discharge polymerization at from 0.25 to 5 watts/per
square inch of lens (col. 6, lines 12 and 64-67) to between 30-100 watts, such as by increasing
the treated surface area of the substrate; and by employing a coating time of about 10 minutes or
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007