Appeal 2006-1582
Application 10/126,350
further argue that there is no motivation to combine the cited references. (Br. 8-9).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner cited the Burns reference for
disclosing the suitability of using a stopper material comprising a plastic. (Answer 4-5).
Appellants have failed to specifically address the Examiner stated position for relying on the
Burns reference.
Regarding claim 3, Appellants argue that Mummolo does not teach or suggest the
method of claims 1 and 3 and does not cure the deficiencies of Martin, Mahulikar and Cui.
Appellants further argue that there is no motivation to combine the cited references. (Br. 10).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner cited the Mummolo reference for
disclosing the suitability of using a stopper material comprising silicone rubber. (Answer 5).
Appellants have failed to specifically address the Examiner stated position for relying on the
Mummolo reference.
Now we turn to the rejections that do not include the Martin reference. Specifically,
claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings
of Mahulikar and Cui; claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combined teachings of Mahulikar, Cui, and Burns; and claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Mahulikar, Cui, and Mummolo. We
reverse each of these rejections.
The Examiner has not established that the Mahulikar, Burns, Cui, and Mummolo
references disclose coating the inside of a hollow body by plasma-induced CVD. Mahulikar
and Cui describe jet vapor deposition (JVD) processes and compare them with CVD.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007