Appeal No. 2003-1007
Application No. 09/336,368
double bonds. Robert T. Morrison & Robert N. Boyd, Organic
Chemistry 579-83 (4th ed. 1983). Accordingly, Lee does not
disclose or suggest the comonomer recited in appealed claim 21.
While Gomi teaches a copolymer of tetravinyl-tetramethyl-
cyclotetrasiloxane and parylene-N (column 7, lines 13-18), this
reference, like Spaulding, does not disclose or suggest the use
of RF power. Instead, Gomi teaches the use of a pyrolizer.
(Column 3, line 62 to column 4, line 35.)
The examiner alleges that thermal polymerization deposition
is equivalent to deposition in which RF power is used. (Answer,
page 9.) We note, however, that the examiner has not identified
any evidence to support this allegation. Contrary to the
examiner’s stated position, Lee, Gomi, and Spaulding do not
suggest the equivalence of thermal polymerization deposition to
RF deposition. Quite oppositely, Lee admonishes one skilled in
the relevant art that the monomer vapors may be deposited by
“cold dissociation” methods but not by methods that “appreciably
heat the precursors.” (Column 12, lines 2-8.)
For these reasons, we cannot affirm.
Summary
In summary, we reverse the examiner’s rejections under: (i)
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, of appealed claims 21, 22, and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007