Appeal 2007-0949
Application 10/081,312
fluoride coating (i.e., the established function of the prior art elements).
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Moreover, since the combined process of Tomita in view of Morton is
the same as the process claimed by Appellants (claims 1, 5, and 6) (i.e., the
same temperature and pressure are used), the magnesium fluoride coating
(i.e., the product produced by the process) would be expected to have the
same density and purity as claimed by Appellants. In re Best, 562 F.2d
1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).
Appellants argue that evaporative and PVD processes are
fundamentally different such that the Examiner’s assertion that process
parameters from an evaporative deposition process are suitable for a PVD
process is overreaching when made without support from the references or
other extrinsic evidence (Reply Br. 3). Contrary to Appellants’ argument, as
evinced by the definition of “physical vapor deposition,” evaporative
processes are a type of physical deposition.2 Hence, PVD and evaporative
processes are not fundamentally different as alleged by Appellants.
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of argued claim 1 and
non-argued claims 3-6, 10, 11, 18, and 19 over Tomita in view of Morton.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER TOMITA IN VIEW OF MORTON
AND ITOH
CLAIM 2
Appellants argue that the mere fact Itoh discloses a mechanism by
which one may adjust the density of a deposited film would have provided
2 See Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, “Thin Films”2
1041, 1044 (Mary Howe-Grant ed., 4th ed. 1997).
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013