Appeal 2007-0949
Application 10/081,312
fluoride coating). KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Based on
the exposition of the prior art disclosures provided in the above paragraphs,
it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
Tomita’s temperature and Morton’s pressure for forming a dense and pure
magnesium fluoride coating with Toyoda’s method of forming a magnesium
fluoride coating in view of Itoh’s recognition that increasing temperature
and decreasing pressure predictably increase the density of the coating. Id.
Additionally, the combination of Toyoda in view of Tomita, Morton, and
Itoh is further supported by Ohashi’s teaching to avoid pinholes and defects
(i.e., changes in density) in the magnesium fluoride coating. In other words,
as evinced by the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection set forth on pages 4-9 and
19-21 of the Answer, Appellants’ claimed invention is merely the
predictable use of prior art elements of temperature and pressure (i.e.,
increasing temperature and decreasing pressure as disclosed by Itoh)
according to their established functions (i.e., to increase the density of the
coating) to achieve a dense and pure magnesium fluoride coating. KSR,
127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that Ohashi uses a
higher pressure (i.e., 5.25 x 10-3 to 3.75 x 10-2 torr) to deposit the 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). As the
Examiner indicated, the Itoh disclosure establishes that temperature and
pressure are result-effective variables (Answer 6, 20-21). Accordingly, it
would have been obvious to decrease the pressure to achieve a dense coating
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013