Appeal No. 2006-1583
Application No. 10/351,826
and such an opinion cannot stand in view of the evidence of record.”
As indicated in our original opinion, we do not dispute the fact advanced in Dr.
Fan’s declaration that sputter deposition is usually conducted at room temperature.
Further, as indicated in our original opinion, we do not dispute the fact advanced in Dr.
Auciello’s declaration that when sputter deposition of the material in question, when
performed at room temperature, always results in an amorphous layer. Our original
concern was and still remains whether one of ordinary skill in the art, having read the
specification and having been apprised of the declarations of Dr. Fan and Dr. Auciello,
would have been able to sputter deposit the TiAl alloy to yield an amorphous oxide. We
are still of the view that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have not been able to sputter
deposit the TiAl alloy to yield the amorphous oxide since Appellant’s specification
indicates that “it is unclear at the present time whether the oxide alloy is amorphous”.
Further, the specification is totally silent on whether the sputter deposition was
performed at room temperature. Thus, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have not even
sought to achieve such result, as it was not particularly contemplated in Appellant’s
specification.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we grant Appellant’s request for rehearing to
the extent of reconsidering our decision, but we deny Appellant’s request with respect to
making any change thereto.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007