Appeal No. 2005-2442
Application No. 10/121,284
OPINION
For each of the above-mentioned rejections, appellants
present similar arguments involving a single issue. The single
issue before us concerns the interpretation of the disclosure of
Grill at column 3, lines 14-27. Appellants dispute the
examiner’s findings with regard to Grill.
More specifically, in the Brief (arguments also are set
forth in the Reply Brief), appellants argue that the examiner’s
findings in connection with Grill’s disclosure in column 3 at
lines 14 through 27 is erroneous. Appellants state:
The portion of Grill ‘793 identified by the Examiner
states that the first precursor is selected from
“molecules with ring structures such as 1,3,5,7-
tetramethylcyclo-tetrasiloxane (TMCTS or C4H16O4Si4),
tetraethylcyclotetrasiloxane (C8H24O4Si4), decamethyl-
cyclopentasiloxane (C10H30O5Si5) molecules of methyl-
silanes mixed with an oxidizing agent such as O2 or N2O
or precursor mixtures including Si, O and C.” Grill
‘793 at col. 3, lines 19-22 (emphasis added). That
statement does not clearly indicate that aliphatic
organosilicon compounds are included as precursors
because the sentence does not make sense. The
underlined portion appears to be a single member of a
list of molecules with ring structures. The intent of
the author is not clear and is not explained elsewhere
in the reference. The literal interpretation of the
phrase “decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (C10H30O5Si5)
molecules of methylsilanes” is that the methylsilanes
are part of the decamethylcyclopentasiloxane ring
structure, which is consistent with the preface of
that sentence identifies molecules with ring
structures.
Applicants submit that the Examiner does not have
the liberty to fix unclear statements in a reference
to find anticipation or obviousness. Thus, Grill ‘793
does not add anything to Xu et al. regarding mixtures
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007