Appeal No. 2004-0676
Application No. 09/562,686
impregnating a porous inorganic oxide matrix
material with silane, siloxane, and/or siloxazane
compounds [claim 1, c. 6, 11. 5-6 and c. 1, 11. 53 - 55];
evaporating the compounds from the matrix material
in a vacuum of from 10-3 to 10-5 mbar at 300/ to 500/C
[claim 1. c. 6, 11. 20-21].
depositing the evaporated compounds on the surface
of an optical substrate heated to 50/ to 300/C [claim 1,
c. 6, 11. 20-21].
The examiner notes that the organosilicon compounds of
formula (I) may be silanes or siloxanes, with typical
examples being perfluoroalkoxylanes [c. 2, 1. 58 - c. 3,
1. 12]. The temperature range of 300/C to 500/C, taught
by Dombrowski, lies within the claimed range of 200/ to
600/C. The temperature range of 50/ to 300/C, taught by
Dombrowski et al., also lies within the claimed range of
30/ to 300/ C, sharing an endpoint at 300/C. Also, the
range of from 10-3 to 10-5 overlaps that of no more than
10-3 claimed, sharing an endpoint at 10-3.
The appellants only argue that (1) Dombrowski does not teach
or would not have suggested employing “a non-sintered porous
inorganic oxide matrix material” in the above vapor coating method
as required by the claims on appeal and (2) the showing in the
specification and the Rule 132 declaration of record demonstrates
that the claimed invention imparts unexpected results, thereby
rebutting any inference of obviousness. See the Brief and the
Reply Brief in their entirety. We do not agree.
As indicated supra, Dombrowski specifically teaches employing
“a porous inorganic oxide matrix” to the coat optical substrate
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007