Appeal No. 1999-2335
Application No. 08/449,809
column 5, lines 1-9; column 6, lines 44-46; column 7, line 29
et seq.
The dispositive issue in this case is whether it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the Turner system by replacing the solid shelves with
the open shelves disclosed in the Yamabe system. We now are
persuaded to answer this in the negative, on the basis of the
following reasoning. Both systems utilize heaters located
outwardly of the peripheries of the substrates and seek to
provide even heat distribution across the exposed faces of the
substrates, but they accomplish this in different ways because
of the difference between continuous and batch processing. It
is axiomatic that the mere fact that the prior art structure
could be modified does not make such a modification obvious
unless the prior art suggests the desirability of doing so.
See, for example,
In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). In the present case, we fail to perceive any
teaching, suggestion or incentive in either reference which
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007