Appeal No. 2004-2027
Application No. 09/670,189
I. claims 1, 2, and 4 through 11 as unpatentable over
Warnes in view of Basta ’963 and Smith (examiner’s
answer mailed Jan. 16, 2004, pages 3-9);
II. claims 3 and 12 through 20 as unpatentable over Warnes
in view of Basta ’963, Smith, and Basta ’614 (id. at 9-
12); and
III. claims 1, 3, 5 through 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, and 20
as unpatentable over Chang in view of Speirs and
Bornstein (id. at 12-15).2
We reverse all three rejections for essentially the reasons
set forth in the appeal brief filed on Oct. 23, 2003 and the
reply brief filed on Feb. 17, 2004.
Regarding rejections I and II, the examiner concedes that
Warnes “does not explicitly teach preparing a coating source that
comprises a solid aluminum halide and a solid fluoride or iodide
of zirconium, hafnium, and/or yttrium.” (Answer at 4.)
Notwithstanding this difference between the claimed invention and
the method described in Warnes, it is the examiner’s basic
position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
led, prima facie, to combine the teachings of Warnes with Smith
and Basta ’963 so as to arrive at a method encompassed by
2 The final rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2, of claims
9 and 20 has been withdrawn. (Advisory action mailed Oct. 8,
2003.)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007