Appeal No. 2005-2442
Application No. 10/121,284
sufficient to show that the reference actually teaches or
suggests the subject matter of the examiner's interpretation.
Appellants also argue that the Board errs in relying on Example
4 of Grill for teaching use of trimethylsilane as evidence to
support the examiner's position in this regard. We are not
convinced of error for the following reasons.
The examiner provides a clear explanation on pages 11-12 of
the Answer of why the sentence in Grill suggests to one of
ordinary skill in the art the phrase “molecules of methylsilanes
mixed with an oxidizing agent." We emphasize that the
explanation provided by the examiner, alone (without reference
to our comments on Example 4 of Grill), is sufficient to support
the examiner’s findings. We stated on page 4 of the Decision
that the examiner stated that he did not fix any unclear
statements within the reference, but rather deduced what the
sentence suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art (Answer
11-12). We indicated that we agreed with this statement. The
examiner used the correct standard in making the finding that a
comma was inadvertently omitted at line 20 of column 3 between
“(C10H30O5Si5)” and "molecules."3
Our reference to Example 4 of Grill was to point out that
Example 4 uses trimethylsilane as the first precursor. The
trimethylsilane is used together with a second precursor (BCHD).
On page 2 of the Request, appellants minimize this teaching of
Example 4 by stating that because Example 4 does not
specifically mention an oxidizing agent, it does not support the
examiner’s position that “molecules of methylsilanes mixed with
3 The standard used by the examiner is what is suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007