Appeal No. 2004-2278 Page 7
Application No. 09/302,471
evidence that such a film is formed in the method of Takei. Nor can we agree that pouring
material into a mold is the same as forming a coating film on a substrate as those words are used
by Appellants.
We also note that the Examiner has not sufficiently addressed the limitation of step
(1)(B) which requires that the coating solution contain an organosiloxane derived from a
particular class of polyalkoxy silane compounds dissolved in solvent in the presence of a basic
compound.
We find that the Examiner has not established anticipation with respect to the subject
matter of claims 13-15.
Claims 8 and 9 by virtue of their dependence on claim 7, include all the limitations of
claim 7. With respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 9 over Takei in view of
Tomikawa, Tomikawa, as applied by the Examiner, does not remedy the deficiencies discussed
above as Tomikawa is relied upon only for the teaching of the specific basic compounds of
claims 8 and 9.
We conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the subject matter of claims 8 and 9.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 7 and 10-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007