Appeal 2007-1312
Application 10/997,715
HDPCVD and PECVD processes. Appellant has not argued, let alone
established with requisite objective evidence, that the benefits espoused by
Liu for HDPCVD deposition are not sacrificed when using it to only
partially fill the gaps.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “Liu is drawn
from the electronic-device arts rather than the optical-device arts” (principal
Br. 8, last sentence). In our view, since both Appellant and Liu are directed
to filling gaps with a high aspect ratio, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have had a reasonable expectation that the HDPCVD process of Liu would
be as effective in filling the gaps in an optical device as in an electronic
device.
Regarding the separately argued claim 20 recitation of the
uppercladding layer having a refractive index between “about 1.4443 and
1.4473,” we agree with the Examiner that the “about” language fails to
distinguish over the refractive index of 1.45 disclosed by Bazylenko. It is
well settled that the claim term “about” allows for some variation from the
stated value. In re De Vaney, 185 F.2d 679, 683, 88 USPQ 97, 101 (CCPA
1950); In re Ayers, 154 F.2d 182, 185, 69 USPQ 109, 112 (CCPA 1946).
Moreover, we find that it would have been a matter of obviousness for one
of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimum refractive index for the
uppercladding layer which correspond to the objectives of a specific optical
device.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013