Appeal 2006-1582
Application 10/126,350
obvious over the combined teachings of Mahulikar, Cui, and Burns; claim 3 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Mahulikar, Cui, and
Mummolo. (Answer 3-7).
Upon careful review of the prospective positions advanced by the Appellants and the
Examiner, we affirm the aforementioned rejections that include the Martin reference for the
reasons provided by the Examiner and add the following. However, we reverse the rejections
that do not include the Martin reference.
The subject matter of independent claim 1 is directed to a plasma induced chemical
vapor deposition of hollow bodies wherein the subject hollow body is introduced into a plasma
induced CVD reactor.
According to the Examiner, Martin teaches coating the inside of a hollow body by
plasma-induced CVD.2 Martin discloses that the hollow body is attached to a manifold
wherein a vacuum is established inside the hollow body and the body is coated by plasma-
induced CVD. (See Fig. 4 and the examples). The Examiner acknowledges that Martin
requires that the interior of the hollow body act as its own vacuum chamber wherein plasma is
induced (col. 3, ll. 41-44).3 Martin does not disclose CVD processing of a hollow body having
two open ends as required by the claimed invention. According to the Examiner, Mahulikar
teaches it is known to coat the interior of hollow bodies having two open ends (Answer 4) .
This coating is achieved by closing one end of the hollow body with a stopper to provide a gas
2 It is noted that hollow bodies are recognized to include tubes, bottles ampoules, syringe bodies
and vessels. (See spec. 1: 16-18; and Martin, col. 1, ll. 25-27).
3 Appellants have not argued that this arrangement does not meet the claim limitation
“introducing the hollow body into a plasma-induced CVD reactor.” (See Briefs generally).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007