Appeal No. 2004-0676
Application No. 09/562,686
by the claims “are completely outside of the scope of the
specification, then the examiner or the Board need only establish
this fact to make out a prima facie case.”). Indeed, the
appellants do not refer to any specific sections of the original
disclosure to demonstrate that such concept is supported by the
written description therein. See the Brief and the Reply Brief in
their entirety.
It follows that the claims on appeal, by virtue of including
the pressure of <10-5 mbar to 0 mbar not disclosed in the original
disclosure, violate the written description requirement of 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Hence, we affirm the examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 27 through 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as lacking written descriptive support for the
invention presently claimed.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 27 through
31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Dombrowski and Tully. The appellants do not dispute
the examiner’s finding that Dombrowski teaches:
Dombrowski teach a method of preparing water-
repellent coatings on optical substrates comprising
thermal vapor coating said optical substrate with
organosilane compounds in a vacuum [claim 1, c. 5, 1.30 -
c. 6, 1. 2], wherein said thermal vaporization comprises:
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007