Appeal 2006-1582
Application 10/126,350
tight seal. (Col. 4, l. 63-col. 5, l.1; and col. 5, ll. 65- 68). The Examiner determined that a
person of ordinary skill would have understood that a tube with one open end is functionally
equivalent to a tube with two open ends with one end closed off in a gas tight manner, as they
both can act as their own vacuum chambers. (Answer 4). The Examiner concluded that hollow
bodies having one of the open end closed off in a gas tight manner would have been suitable
for the process of Martin. (Answer 4).
Appellants argue that Martin and Mahulikar do not teach or suggest closing off one
open end of a hollow body in a gas-tight manner by a cover and applying vacuum to the hollow
body via other open end as specified by claims 1 and 4. (Br. 4). We do not agree.
Mahulikar’s figures 1 and 2 disclose that the vacuum can be applied to either end of the hollow
body.4 Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the
hollow body of Mahulikar would have been suitable for the process of Martin.
Appellants’ arguments regarding the homogeneous coating temperature are not
persuasive (Br. 4). Martin discloses the hollow body substrate is not heated and maintained at
room temperature during the deposition process. (Col. 5, ll. 65-68). Since the hollow body is
not subjected to heating, the temperature must necessarily be homogeneous. The claim
limitation “establishing a homogeneous coating temperature” does not require heating to
achieve this condition.
Regarding claim 2, Appellants argue that Burns does not teach or suggest the method of
claims 1 and 2 and does not cure the deficiencies of Martin, Mahulikar and Cui. Appellants
4 We note that Appellants have not argued that the pressure specified by Mahulikar, col. 6. ll.
3-4, is not suitable for the process of Martin.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007