Appeal No. 2004-0681
Application No. 09/899,743
with Dixit’s disclosure in lines 25-52 of column 6) and
accordingly that Dixit’s plasma exposure must necessarily convert
his xerogel pore surfaces from hydrophobic to hydrophilic in the
same manner as the appellants’ corresponding plasma exposure.
The appellants’ sole argument in response to the above
discussed anticipation finding of the examiner is set forth on
page 3 of the brief as follows:
Dixit only mentions porous dielectrics (aerogels,
xerogels) in passing (column 4, line 7; column 7, line
41; and column 8, line 8) and without any hydrophobic
or hydrophilic comments. Consequently, Dixit has no
suggestion of the plasma conversion of hydrophobic to
hydrophilic. In short, Dixit fails to anticipate the
claims 6-7.
In stating that “Dixit only mentions porous dielectrics
(aerogels, xerogels) in passing (column 4, line 7; column 7, line
41; and column 8, line 8),” the appellants have failed to explain
with any reasonable specificity how this statement militates
against the examiner’s section 102 rejection. It may be that the
appellants consider the Dixit reference to be non-anticipatory
because it discloses dielectrics other than the xerogels under
consideration. While this characterization of patentee’s
disclosure is accurate, it does not forestall a finding of
anticipation. Given the limited number of dielectrics disclosed
by Dixit and his preference for a low dielectric constant (the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007