Appeal No. 2005-2522 Page 13
Application No. 09/841,453
the answer and above. Consequently, we affirm the examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 17, on this record.
Regarding the examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting
rejection of claims 2-29 and 31-34 over the claims of Rutherford
in view of Grainger and Kotelnikov, we note that appellants do
not furnish separate arguments for the so rejected claims. Thus,
we select claim 20, as the representative claim on which we shall
decide this appeal as to this rejection.
In obviousness-type double patenting rejections, the
analysis employed parallels the guidelines for analysis of a
Section 103 obviousness determination. See In re Longi, 759 F.2d
887, 892-93, 225 USPQ 645, 648 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
A review of claim 1 of Rutherford reveals that a nanoporous
silica dielectric film coated with a polymer is claimed therein.
Appellants argue that the claims of Rutherford do not indicate
that the polymer used in the coating is reactive with silanol
groups on the silica film, as is required for appealed
representative claim 20. However, the examiner relies on6
6Appellants refer to U.S. patent application No. 09/379,484
(now U.S. Patent No. 6,318,124) at page 7, lines 12 and 13 of
their specification as being co-owned with the instant
application that is the subject of this appeal. Appellants do
not contest the rejection advanced by the examiner on the lack of
a common assignment/owner and/or a lack of a common inventor
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007