Ex Parte Boulineau et al - Page 7



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

          range below 10-5 mbar, i.e., <10-5 mbar to 0 mbar.  However, the             
          specification, as originally filed, discloses (page 17, lines 3-6)          
          that:                                                                       
               On reaching a stable final vacuum, for instance in the                 
               range between 10-3 and 10-5 mbar, the evaporation of the                
               compound of the formula I, II, III and/or IV [in a porous              
               inorganic oxide matrix material] is brought about by                   
               heating at temperatures of from 200 oC to 600 oC, or 300               
               oC to 500 oC.                                                          
          This original specification then goes on to exemplify evaporating           
          the claimed compound in a porous inorganic oxide matrix material            
          within such pressure range, i.e., a pressure of 3 x 10-5 mbar.  See         
          page 18.  There simply is nothing in the application disclosure, as         
          originally filed, which reasonably conveys the concept of employing         
          a pressure range of 10-5 mbar to 0 mbar (included by the claimed            
          language “no more than 10-3 mbar”) to evaporate the claimed                 
          compound in a porous inorganic oxide matrix material to coat                
          optical substrates.  See Lockwood v. American Airlines Inc., 107            
          F.3d 1565, 1571, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(“One shows           
          that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the              
          invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes           
          it obvious...”); In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1175, 37 USPQ2d 1578,           
          1583, citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263-64, 191 USPQ 90, 97          
          (CCPA 1976)(Where embodiments of the claimed invention encompassed          
                                          7                                           




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007