Appeal 2007-0949
Application 10/081,312
We have considered Appellants’ argument and find it unpersuasive
for the reasons below.
Appellants do not contest that Kawamata discloses performing the
coating step in an inert atmosphere as recited in claim 14, or that
Kawamata’s performance of the coating in an inert atmosphere is
combinable with the method of Toyoda in view of Ohashi, Itoh, Tomita, and
Morton. Rather, Appellants argue that Kawamata 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 argued
claim 14 and non-argued claim 15 over Toyoda in view of Ohashi, Itoh,
Tomita, Morton, and Kawamata.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER TOMITA IN VIEW OF MORTON
CLAIM 1
Appellants argue there is no suggestion to combine Morton’s low-
pressure deposition method with Tomita’s method of forming a magnesium
fluoride coating (Br. 10). Appellants further argue that Tomita’s evaporative
process and Morton’s physical vapor deposition (PVD) process use
fundamentally different deposition techniques, process equipment, and
process chemistries, such that an assertion that process parameters from an
evaporative deposition process are suitable for a PVD process is
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013