Appeals 2006-2874 and 2006-2747
Applications 08/544,212 and 09/287,664
Patent 5,401,305
1 Appellants' position
2 Appellants maintain that there is no "motivation" to use a metal oxide
3 in combination with the silicon oxide of Lagendijk. Appeal Brief, page 6
4 (Appeal 2006-2747).
5 Appellants further maintain that Gordon '316 “teaches the
6 undesirability of water, cautioning against it in example 2, which … [is said
7 to show that] water causes an undesirable reaction with an organoaluminum
8 compound, e.g., (aluminum-2,4-pentanedionate).” Id.
9 Appellants still further maintain that “[t]he adverse results with water
10 would suggest to a skilled artisan that disclosure of ancillary compounds in
11 CVD coating processes in this art would not carry the implication that they
12 would benefit any coating process, but rather, each candidate for evaluation
13 as an adjuvant would require separate testing before they [sic—one having
14 ordinary skill in the art] could draw any conclusion about its [i.e., the
15 candidate's] suitability in the process.” Id. at pages 6-7. Arguably
16 consistent with Appellants' position is the following statement in the patent
17 (col. 3, line 65 through col. 4, line 2):
18 From a review of the prior art, it cannot be
19 determined what precursor combinations, if any,
20 can be used for continuous deposition, under
21 conditions and at a rate suitable for mass
22 production, of mixed metal oxides/silicon oxide
23 films at adequate rates from readily available and
24 relatively inexpensive reagents.
25
26 Appellants lastly maintain that they are using unobvious starting
27 materials in their claimed process and therefore the obviousness issue is
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013