Ex Parte Jinks - Page 6




               Appeal No. 2005-1693                                                                                                  
               Application No. 10/192,333                                                                                            

               2-26.  The examiner recognizes that Warby does not deposit the coating using a thermal CVD                            
               process.  Nevertheless, the examiner relies on Gleason for its teaching of using a thermal CVD                        
               process to form a (CF2)n-type polymer thin film on articles having biomedical applications.                           
               Answer at 3-4.                                                                                                        
                       The examiner explains that (Answer at 3-4):                                                                   
                       [B]ecause WO ‘356 [Gleason] discloses that use of the claimed thermal [method]                                
                       to deposit PTFE coatings with monomers such as hexafluoropropylene oxide on                                   
                       surfaces such as biomedical devices is advantageous over the continuous plasma                                
                       method such as that shown in WO ‘154 [Warby] in that the deposited coatings’                                  
                       properties more closely resemble those of bulk PTFE which are advantageous for                                
                       biomedical devices and such methods allow for coating on temperature sensitive                                
                       substrates (page 1, lines 14-25, page 2, lines 14-26, page 3, line 14 to page 6, line                         
                       28, examples), it would have been obvious to have applied the PTFE coatings on                                
                       the MID [medical inhalation device] surfaces using the processes described in                                 
                       WO ‘356 [Gleason] so as to achieve the superior coatings having properties                                    
                       similar to bulk PTFE and to allow for coating on the temperature sensitive                                    
                       substrates.                                                                                                   
                       The appellant argues that there is no motivation or suggestion in the cited art to coat the                   
               components of the medicinal inhalation device of Warby with a fluorocarbon polymer film using                         
               the claimed thermal CVD process.  Specifically, the appellant argues that Warby does not                              
               recognize the disadvantages associated with the disclosed plasma deposition process.  Therefore,                      
               Warby would not have suggested alternative deposition processes, such as the thermal CVD                              
               process disclosed in Gleason.  Brief at 4-5.                                                                          
                       The appellant’s argument is not persuasive.  Significantly, one cannot show                                   
               nonobviousness by attacking a reference individually, as the appellant has done, where the                            
               rejection is based on a combination of references.  In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ                         

                                                                 6                                                                   





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007