Appeal No. 2004-0676
Application No. 09/562,686
with the claimed compounds. Although Dombrowski exemplifies a
porous inorganic oxide matrix made of a sintered inorganic oxide
material, it does not limit its porous inorganic oxide matrix to
only those made of sintered inorganic oxide materials. See column
3, lines 44-55 and column 4, lines 63-64. Had Dombrowski intended
to limit its porous inorganic oxide matrix to those made of
sintered inorganic oxide materials, it would have included the word
“sintered” to the phrase “porous inorganic oxide matrix” as is done
in reference to a porous matrix used in a prior vapor coating
process at column 2, lines 15-17. However, Dombrowski employs the
generic terminology “a porous inorganic oxide matrix” in its
specification and claims to encompass both sintered and non-
sintered inorganic oxide matrix materials. Thus, from our
perspective, Dombrowski as a whole would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the employment of either a sintered or
non-sintered porous inorganic oxide matrix in its vapor coating
process within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. See, e.g., Merck &
Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d
1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re
Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962).
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007