Appeal 2007-1764
Application 10/391,320
Appealed claims 1, 5, 9, 11, 12, and 26-32 stand rejected as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Onda in view of Ho; and claim 4
stands rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Onda in view
of Ho and further in view of Rubner.
Appellants have indicated that “[t]his Reply Brief (filed November 20,
2006) replaces Appellants’ Brief which was filed on July 3, 2006” (Br. 1).
Consequently, we will limit our discussion to Appellants’ position presented
in the Reply Brief. 2 We have considered the Examiner's position as
presented in the Answer mailed September 19, 2006. Appellants have
grouped the arguments for the rejected claims together. Accordingly, all of
the claims stand or fall together. 3
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in full agreement with the Examiner that the
claimed subject matter is unpatentable over the cited prior art. Accordingly,
we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons set forth in the
present record, and we add the following for emphasis only.
The Examiner properly determined that Onda teaches a dielectric
support material that is coated with multilayer thin films formed by a layer-
by-layer process comprising coating the solid support with alternating layers
of ionic polymers having opposite net electrical charges (Answer 3-4).
2 We will reference this document as “Br” in this decision.
3 Regarding the subject matter of claim 4, Appellants rely on the position
presented in response to the rejection over Onda in view of Ho.
Consequently, the subject matter of claim 4 will stand or fall with
independent claim 1 from which it depends.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013