Appeal 2007-0949
Application 10/081,312
overreaching when made without support from the references or other
extrinsic evidence (Reply Br. 3).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and find them
unpersuasive for the reasons below.
As the Examiner states in the “Response to Arguments” section on
pages 22-23 of the Answer, Tomita discloses forming a low porosity (i.e.,
high density) magnesium fluoride coating, but is silent regarding the exact
density and purity of the coating, or the pressure used in the deposition
method (Answer 23; Tomita, col. 4, ll. 49-54). Morton discloses that using a
pressure of 1 x 10-6 torr or less produces a dense and pure magnesium
fluoride coating (Answer 23; Morton, col. 3, ll. 48-66). Based on these
disclosures, the Examiner properly concludes that it would have been
obvious to combine Morton’s pressure with Tomita’s method of making a
magnesium fluoride coating so as to produce a dense and pure magnesium
fluoride coating as disclosed by Morton. Tomita’s disclosure to form a low
porosity (i.e., high density) coating provides motivation for using Morton’s
pressure that forms a dense and pure magnesium fluoride coating.
From the above disclosures, the Examiner properly determined
(Answer 23) that the teachings of the prior art provide motivation for the
combination. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1457-
58 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
We add that the combination of Tomita in view of Morton as
discussed above demonstrates that Appellants’ claimed invention is merely
the predictable use of pressures and temperatures (i.e., prior art elements) as
disclosed by Tomita and Morton to produce a dense and pure magnesium
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013