Appeal No. 2000-1042
Application No. 08/986,449
apparatus to implant, as well as the dependent claim
limitations of the implantation method, ion energy
levels, doses, voltages, the specific antifoulants,
reactor shapes and other expedients.
The invention as a whole however would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art because
the artisan equipped with the knowledge that ion
implantation can be used to apply antifoulants, would
have sufficient knowledge to provide the apparatus for
such application; judiciously select proper antifoulant
from known antifoulants including those listed; select
the appropriate application conditions for given
reactor and degree of protection sought. The sole
suggestion needed is that of using the ion implantation
as a means for providing protected reactor surfaces.
Cabrera et al. does provide such suggestion.
In the alternative it wold have been obvious to
select the ion implantation method from various
alternatives known in the art and determine the process
expedients as shown in Leung, Chan, Chan et al.,
Conrad, Fetherston et al.
The deficiency of the section 103 rejection based on Cabrera
alone is immediately revealed by the examiner’s above quoted
acknowledgment that “the reference does not teach the process
steps employed in ion implantation, i.e. the providing implanting
apparatus, operating said apparatus to implant, as well as the
dependent claim limitations of the implantation method, ion
energy levels, doses, voltages, the specific antifoulants,
reactor shapes and other expedients.” In light of this absence
of any teaching concerning the appellants’ claimed process steps,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007