Appeals 2006-2874 and 2006-2747
Applications 08/544,212 and 09/287,664
Patent 5,401,305
1 Claim 39 (Appeal 2006-2684)
2 Claim 39 is directed to an article and reads:
3 An article comprising a substrate and a film
4 of claim 33 deposited thereon.
5
6 The principal substrate would be glass. See col. 4, line 18.
7 We do not see any material difference between a film claim and an
8 article claim comprising a film and a substrate. The film is useful because it
9 is deposited on a substrate. Accordingly, in our view claim 39 stands or falls
10 with claim 33.
11 Claims 40-42 and 44-47 (Appeal 2006-2684)
12 Claims 40-42 and 44-47 are dependent claims which do not call for
13 the presence of silicon oxide.
14 These stand or fall with claim 33 and 39.
15
16 Claims 43 and 48-49 (Appeal 2006-2684)
17 Claims 43 and 48-49 are dependent claims which further require the
18 presence of “silicon oxide” and are not limited to the silicon oxides of
19 application original claim 11.
20 These claims stand or fall with claim 37.
21
22 Claims 50-52 (Appeal 2006-2684)
23 Claims 50-52 depend from claim 33 and are directed to films.
rejection. The fact is that Appellants are attempting to recapture “silicon
oxide” given up during prosecution and that is so whether a lack of
enablement rejection is or is not made. Moreover, the Examiner may have
felt that a recapture rejection was sufficient to complete examination of the
application on appeal without any need to reach other possible rejections.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013