Appeal 2007-2680
Application 10/756,352
(Specification ¶ [0001]). Appellant discloses that the coating method is
needed to “define a sharp border for the clear aperture” (i.e., no peripheral
coating on the clear aperture obscuring the light transmission) (Specification
¶¶ [0006] to [0007]).
From the above disclosures and the claims, we find Appellant’s field
of endeavor includes methods of coating optical elements. Bigio, 381 F.3d
at 1325-27, 72 USPQ2d at 1212-13. Appellant’s argument that the field of
endeavor should be limited to forming peripheral coatings on calcium
fluoride optical elements so as to leave a clear aperture is too narrow a field
of endeavor in light of Appellant’s full disclosure and the common sense
exerted by one of ordinary skill in the art having read Appellant’s disclosure.
Id.
Moreover, we find that the purpose of Appellant’s claimed invention
(i.e., the problem to be solved) is maintaining a clear aperture while
providing a peripheral coating having a “sharp border” (i.e., sharply defined
borders). Clay, 966 F.2d at 659, 23 USPQ2d at 1061.
Kato is directed to forming a TiO2, UV light absorbing coating on
fluorite (i.e., calcium fluoride) optical elements (Kato ¶¶ [0063], [0064],
[0087]).
Daniels discloses forming a coating on an optical element by applying
a removable adhering substance (i.e., a first coating) having a particular
design and applying an antireflective coating (i.e., a second coating) over the
removable adhering substance (i.e., first coating) (Daniels, col. 3, ll. 52-68).
Daniels further discloses that the first coating is removed to leave a void on
the optical element (Daniels, col. 3, ll. 60-61, 67-68; col. 4, ll. 1-2). Daniels
discloses that the prior art masking methods that leave a gap between the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013