Appeal 2007-0949
Application 10/081,312
Furthermore, since the claim 2 process and the process of Tomita in
view of Morton and Itoh are identical, one would expect the density and
purity of the magnesium fluoride coating of the combined prior art process
to be the same as Appellants’ claimed magnesium fluoride coating. Best,
562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433-34. Appellants bear the burden of
showing that such density would not be achieved. Id. Appellants have not
proffered any showing to satisfy their burden.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a)
rejection of claim 2 over Tomita in view of Morton and Itoh.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER TOMITA IN VIEW OF MORTON,
ITOH AND OHMI
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. 11). Appellants also 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. 11).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and find them
unpersuasive for the reasons given below.
Regarding Appellants’ argument that Ohmi does not teach the claimed
density and purity of the magnesium fluoride coating, as discussed above,
the claimed purity and density would have been rendered obvious by the
combination of Tomita in view of Morton and Itoh.
Furthermore, Appellants’ argument regarding Ohmi’s temperature
range disclosure for magnesium fluoride (i.e., 150-450°C) is not persuasive.
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013