Appeal No. 1999-1047 Page 9
Application No. 08/238,598
regard to the subject matter of claim 3, and we will sustain the rejection of claim 3 and the
other claims in the group.
We reach the opposite conclusion, however, with regard to the rejection of claims 3,
4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21-24 27, 30 and 31 as being unpatentable over the conceded
prior art in view of Bartholomew ‘020, Barthlomew ‘975, Awaya and Tappan. The
appellants have argued that no suggestion exists in Tappan for modifying the Awaya gas
distribution plate in the manner proposed by the examiner, and we agree.
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 In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Tappan is directed to a reaction chamber design and method for minimizing particle
generation in a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition system. This reference
discloses a plasma shield 6 that is provided with an annular cooling system passage the
purpose of which is to cool the line-of-sight surface. The cooling system comprises an
annular passage formed in the plasma shield member 8 which appears to be sealed by a
cover (unnumbered). Unlike Kessler, Tappan sets forth no advantage of this construction
over others that might have been known to the artisan. We therefore fail to perceive any
teaching, suggestion or incentive in either Awaya or Tappan which would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the Awaya gas distribution plate by replacing the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007