Appeal 2007-0949
Application 10/081,312
Appellants do not contest that Kubota discloses the claimed surface
finish of claim 18 or that Kubota’s surface finish is combinable with the
method of Toyoda in view of Ohashi, Itoh, Tomita, and Morton. Rather,
Appellants argue that Kubota does not teach the claimed density and purity
of the magnesium fluoride coating. However, as discussed above, the
combination of Toyoda in view of Ohashi, Itoh, Tomita, and Morton would
have rendered obvious the claimed purity and density of the coating.
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 8
over Toyoda in view of Ohashi, Itoh, Tomita, Morton, and Kubota.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER TOYODA IN VIEW OF OHASHI,
ITOH, TOMITA, MORTON. AND OHMI
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9
Appellants argue that Ohmi does not disclose that the magnesium
fluoride coating has “a density of at least about 85% and a purity of at least
about 99%” as claimed (Br. 8). Appellants further argue that Ohmi discloses
that magnesium fluoride may be heated to a temperature of 150-450°C after
it is formed, not 200-600°C as cited by the Examiner (Br. 8). Appellants
contend that Ohmi discloses that the 200-600°C range is for iron fluoride,
not magnesium fluoride (Br. 8).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and find them
unpersuasive for the reasons below.
Appellants argue that Ohmi does not teach the claimed density and
purity of the magnesium fluoride coating. However, as discussed above, the
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013