Appeal No. 2004-2278 Page 4
Application No. 09/302,471
rejection is that it does not provide a claim-by-claim analysis nor does it particularly point out
where in Takei each of the limitations of the claims is found in the reference. Once one focuses
on individual claims and makes a comparison of the claim limitations with the prior art, the
deficiencies of the rejection become apparent. At the outset, we focus on the two independent
claims, claims 7 and 15.
Starting with claim 7, we note that this claim is directed to a method for the preparation
of a coating solution. Step (a) of claim 7 is a step of dissolving a polyalkoxy silane from a
particular class of compounds in a first organic solvent, which is an alcohol solvent, to obtain a
solution containing 1-5 wt. % polyalkoxy silane calculated as SiO2. According to the
specification, a useful polyalkoxy silane is tetramethoxy silane or, as referred to by the
Examiner, TMOS.
The Examiner finds that Takei teaches a method of forming a coating composition and
coating a substrate wherein 100g TMOS, 500g of methanol, 360g of DMF (dimethylformamide),
and 266g of THF alcohol (tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol) are admixed thereby yielding a
concentration on the basis of SiO2 of about 3% by weight (Answer, p. 3). While the Examiner
does not provide a citation to Takei for this finding, it appears that the Examiner is relying on
Example 1. We, however, do not find support in Example 1, nor in other portions of Takei, for
the finding that Takei uses TMOS in the initial admixture. What Takei uses is a partial
polycondensate of TMOS. The Examiner has not provided persuasive evidence that the partial
polycondensate of TMOS is the same as TMOS itself. Nor has the Examiner provided evidence
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007