Appeal 2007-2680
Application 10/756,352
Kato’s limiting the coating to the peripheral regions to provide a clear
aperture so as to increase UV light transmission through the aperture with
Bauer’s optical element coating method. Id. The combination of Daniels
and Kato with Bauer predictably uses prior art techniques (masking, coating
and removing the mask) according to their established functions (i.e.,
masking to provide a coating with a more sharply defined border). Id.
In fact, making such a combination would have been desirable
because it produces coatings on optical elements having sharply defined
borders and optical elements with increased light transmission and decreased
contamination as disclosed by Daniels and Kato (Daniels, col. 1, ll. 64-68;
Kato ¶¶ [0002], [0064]).
From the foregoing, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
argued claims 1 and 26.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 6-22 AND 25
Various combinations of dependent claims 6-22 and 25 were rejected
over different combinations of the applied prior art noted above in our
presentation of the Examiner’s rejections. Appellant has not provided
arguments specific to any of the various rejections applied to dependent
claims 6-22 and 25. Rather, Appellant broadly argues that the various
secondary references are non-analogous art because they are not in the same
field of endeavor and are not reasonably pertinent to the problem to be
solved by Appellant (Br. 18). Appellant further argues that there is no
reason to combine the secondary references with Bauer, Kato and Daniels
absent impermissible hindsight (Br. 19).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013