Appeal 2007-0949
Application 10/081,312
With regard to the rejections in which Tomita is the primary
reference, Appellants separately argue claims 1, 2, and 9. Accordingly,
dependent claims 3-6, 10, 11, 18, and 19 stand or fall with these claims.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER TOYODA IN VIEW OF OHASHI,
ITOH, TOMITA AND MORTON
CLAIM 1
Appellants argue that none of the references discloses or suggests a
method of forming a magnesium fluoride coating having “a density of at
least about 85% and a purity of at least about 99%” (Br. 4-6). Appellants
further argue that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to optimize the temperature and pressure of the magnesium fluoride
deposition process (Br. 6). Specifically, Appellants argue that Ohashi uses a
higher pressure (i.e, 5.25 x 10-3 to 3.75 x 10-2 torr) to deposit a magnesium
fluoride coating free of pinholes and defects (Br. 6) such that there would
have been no reason to lower the pressure to 1 x 10-6 torr as disclosed by
Morton to achieve a coating free of pinholes or defects (Br. 7). Appellants
further contend that the Examiner used impermissible hindsight in selecting
“a density at least about 85%” as the threshold density that the coating of the
references would have or be trying to obtain (Reply Br. 3).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and find them
unpersuasive for the reasons below.
The question to be answered when assessing the obviousness of a
claimed invention reciting a combination of prior art elements is whether the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013