Appeals 2006-2874 and 2006-2747
Applications 08/544,212 and 09/287,664
Patent 5,401,305
1 deposition] source solutions comprising metal oxide precursors and
2 accelerants." Examiner's Answer, page 3 (Appeal 2006-2747).
3 To confirm the correctness of the Examiner's observation, one need go
4 no further than the specification of the patent sought to be reissued where
5 one can find a discussion of the prior art.
6 Two prior art references discussed Appellants' specification are
7 (1) Gordon (U.S. Patent 4,206,252) and (2) Hochberg, J. Electrochem. Soc.
8 136(6) 1843 (1989). Gordon is mentioned at col. 2, lines 15-27 and
9 Hochberg is mentioned at col. 3, lines 55-64. Both are prior art vis-à-vis
10 Appellants under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
11
12 Examiner's rationale
13 The Examiner found, and Appellants do not seem to disagree, that the
14 subject matter described in Example 4 of Lagendijk differs from the claimed
15 subject matter in that it does not include a metal oxide. Examiner's Answer,
16 page 3 (Appeal 2006-2747).
17 The Examiner also found that Examples 4-144 of Gordon '316
18 describe the use of a combination of a silicon oxide and a metal oxide,
19 including oxides of indium, aluminum and zinc to obtain certain properties
20 in films. Examiner's Answer, page 4.
21 The Examiner reasoned that it would have been obvious, in view of
22 Gordon '316 to use a metal oxide in combination with the silicon oxide in
23 the process of Lagendijk in order to obtain those same properties.
24
4 The Examiner's Answer refers to "claims 4-14." In context, it is clear that
the Examiner meant to refer to Examples 4-14.
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013