Appeal 2007-0170
Application 10/262,510
insulating material at either side of each nanolaminate
component, connecting the two nanolaminate components in a
spaced relationship. (Figure 6C)
(Answer 4)
The Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Pisharody teaches
an apparatus comprising nano-scale laminates components arranged in the
claimed manner (Br. 4-6). The Appellants only argue that Pisharody does
not teach “nanolaminate materials as recited in claim 1 of the present
invention.” (Br. 4-5) In support of this argument, the Appellants rely on
paragraph 39 of U.S. Patent Application 10/167,926, filed June 11, 2002,
mentioned (but not incorporated by reference) in paragraph 0004 of the
present application (Br. 4). According to the Appellants, the claimed
nanolaminate components are limited to those made of the materials
described at paragraph 39 of U.S. Patent Application 10/167,926 (id). The
Appellants specifically state at page 4 of the Brief that:
U.S. Patent Application S.N. 10/167,926, filed June 11, 2002
. . . states . . . : "Nano-laminate materials are a new class of
materials for technological application. At this time, nano-
laminate structures have been synthesized by PVD in elemental
form, as alloys, or a compounds-from [sic] at least 82 of the 92
naturally occurring elements. The microstructure scale of these
materials is determined during synthesis by controlling the
thickness of the individual layers. These layers are from one
monolayer (0.2 nm) to hundreds of monolayers (>500 nm) thick
and, except in special cases, generally define the in-depth
crystalline grain size."
The Examiner takes the position that the claimed nanolaminate
components are not limited to those produced by the materials described at
paragraph 39 of a patent application not incorporated into the present
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013