Appeal 2007-0949
Application 10/081,312
no motivation to alter the disclosed processes of another prior art reference
(i.e., Tomita or Morton) (Br. 10). Appellants further argue that Tomita,
Morton, or Itoh do not disclose a magnesium fluoride coating having “a
density of at least about 85% and a purity of at least about 99%” (Br. 10-11).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and find them
unpersuasive for the reasons below.
Itoh describes that temperature and pressure are result-effective
variables in determining the density of the magnesium fluoride coating (Itoh,
col. 5, ll. 7-21). Specifically, Itoh discloses that a high temperature and low
pressure produces a dense magnesium fluoride coating (Itoh, col. 5, ll. 10-
14). Tomita discloses a suitable temperature for producing a low porosity
(i.e., high density) magnesium fluoride coating (Tomita, col. 4, ll. 40-42, 49-
54) and Morton discloses a pressure for achieving a “pure and dense”
magnesium fluoride coating (Morton, col. 3, ll. 48-66).
It would have been obvious to combine and optimize Morton’s
pressure and the temperature with Tomita’s method to achieve a pure and
dense magnesium fluoride coating in view of Itoh’s disclosure that
temperature and pressure are result-effective variables. In re Woodruff,
919 F.2d at 1578, 16 USPQ2d at 1936-1937; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d at 276,
205 USPQ at 219; In re Aller, 220 F.2d at 456, 105 USPQ at 235.
We add that the combination of Tomita in view of Morton and Itoh as
discussed above demonstrates that Appellants’ claimed invention is merely
the predictable use of pressures and temperatures (i.e., prior art elements) to
produce a dense and pure magnesium fluoride coating (i.e., the established
function of these prior art elements). KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d
at 1396.
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013