Appeal No. 2002-1330
Application No. 09/178,249
Smith. In any event, the appellants do not dispute the
examiner’s apparent determination that when the teachings of
Smith and Radhakrishnan are combined, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to arrive at a method encompassed by
appealed claim 1.5 Rather, the appellants argue that
Radhakrishnan does not suggest any “flowing” of a catalyst over
a precursor layer. (Appeal brief, page 3.)
We are not persuaded by the appellants’ argument. When
properly construed, the claim limitation “flowing a precursor
reaction catalyst over said layer” includes the type of catalyst
vapor movement as described in Smith. The examiner’s rejection
is based not on Radhakrishnan alone but instead on the
collective teachings of both applied prior art references. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)(“The
test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference...Rather, the test is what the combined
5 In the event of continued examination, the examiner
should provide a detailed explanation on how the combined
teachings of Smith and Radhakrishnan would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art a method in which “(b) said flowing
of step (b) of claim 1 is into said chamber at the circular
periphery of said chamber, is radial over said precursor layer
to a central axis, and is out of said chamber at said central
axis,” as recited in appealed claim 5.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007