Ex Parte Boulineau et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2004-0676                                                        
          Application No. 09/562,686                                                  

                                APPEALED SUBJECT MATTER                               
               Claim 27 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and         
          reads as follows:                                                           
          27.  A method of preparing water-repellent coatings on optical              
          substrates comprising thermal vapor coating said optical substrate          
          with at least one organosilane compound in a vacuum, wherein said           
          thermal vaporization comprises:                                             
               impregnating a non-sintered porous inorganic oxide matrix              
          material with at least one compound selected from the group                 
          consisting of silane, siloxane and siloxazane compounds;                    
               evaporating the at least one organosilane compound from the            
          matrix material in a vacuum of no more than 10-3 mbar at 200/C to           
          600/C; and                                                                  
               depositing the evaporated at least one organosilane compounds          
          on the surface of an optical substrate heated to 30/C to 300/C;             
                                       REFERENCE                                      
               The examiner relies on the following prior art references:             
          Tully et al. (Tully)          4,387,195      Jun.  7, 1983                  
          Dombrowski et al. (Dombrowski)  5,853,800         Dec. 29, 1998             




               1(...continued)                                                        
          the rejections of claims 27 through 37 which are all of the                 
          claims in the application.  The appellants also questioned the              
          propriety of the examiner’s rejections of claims 27 through 37 in           
          their Brief and Reply Brief.  Accordingly, we presume that the              
          appellants’ appeal is directed to the examiner’s final rejection            
          of claims 27 through 37.                                                    
                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007