Appeal 2007-0170
Application 10/262,510
Specification [0018], materials used to form nanolaminate components are
described in an unlimited manner as shown below:
By way of example, each of the nano-laminated
components 11, 12 and 11’[,] 12’ may be composed of from
two pair to an arbitrary number of multilayers, each composed
of alternating layers of metal, such as aluminum, gold, and
molybdenum, and layers of insulation, such as alumina, silica,
and ceria, with layer thicknesses in the range of nm to μm.
[Emphasis added.]
The Appellants’ reference to paragraph 39 of a different patent application
(not incorporated into the present Specification) does not negate the explicit
disclosure of the present application. We observe nothing in this record
relied upon by the Appellants, which requires us to import embodiments,
i.e., materials used to form nanolaminate components, from a patent
application not part of the present application. The Appellants simply have
not demonstrated that the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonable.
Accordingly, we concur with the Examiner that Pisharody would have
rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, and 7 anticipated within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
In rejecting claims 5 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner
takes the position (Answer 4-5) that:
Pisharody et al disclose[s] an apparatus as described
above in addressing claims 1, 3, 4, and 7.
Pisharody do [sic, does] not explicitly disclose distances
d as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
modify the apparatus of Pisharody et al by widening the
channel such that it is either wider than the height of the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013