Appeal 2006-1582
Application 10/126,350
However, the cited references do not disclose the use of plasma in the described JVD
processes. The Examiner has not directed us to the portions of either reference that describes
the formation of plasma induced coating.5 The Burns and Mummolo references have not been
relied upon by the Examiner for teaching the formation of plasma induced coating.
OTHER ISSUES
In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should ensure that the claimed
invention meets the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Upon review of Appellants’ disclosure, it is not clear how the homogeneous coating
temperature is determined prior to producing the coating of uniform thickness. The examples
in the specification indicate that the determination as to whether a homogeneous coating
temperature has been achieved is based on the observation of the uniform layer distribution
observed at the end of the process. It is noted that in both the example and the comparative
example the temperature of 180ēC was established. Both examples employ the same vacuum
pressure and number of the coats that were applied. The stated distinction in the product of the
comparative example was the formation of an inhomogeneous layer distribution between the
neck and flange of the dome. This distinction was attributed to the use of an in homogeneous
temperature distribution. (Spec. 3). Since the reaction temperature and the vacuum pressure in
both examples are identical, the record is unclear why these conditions in one example provide
a homogeneous coating temperature and in another example provides an inhomogeneous
coating temperature. The Examiner should ensure that the specification adequately enables a
5 The Examiner in the previously discussed rejections relied on the Martin reference for this
disclosure.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007