Ex Parte Hwang et al - Page 2




             Appeal No. 2002-2055                                                             Page 2               
             Application No. 09/727,547                                                                            


                                                 BACKGROUND                                                        
                    The appellants’ invention relates to a method of reducing by-product deposition                
             inside wafer processing equipment.  The examiner rejected claims 9, 11 and 14 under                   
             35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Comita et al. U.S. Patent Application                      
             Publication US2001/0008618A1 of July 19, 2001 (Comita), claims 9-12 and 14 under                      
             35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Comita, and claim 13 under 35 U.S.C.                    
             § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Comita in view of Nozaki et al. Japanese Kokai                    
             Patent Application SHO 61-117824 of June 5, 1986 (Nozaki).                                            
                    The appellants did not traverse the rejections made by the examiner.  Their sole               
             argument was that Comita was not a proper reference because its effective filing date                 
             did not precede the filing date of their own U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.                  
             60/070,697, which was filed on January 7, 1998, and which in their view established a                 
             constructive reduction to practice of the invention disclosed in the present application.             
             However, Provisional Patent Application No. 60/070,697 became abandoned one year                      
             later by virtue of 35 U.S.C. § 111(b)(5), and therefore was not copending with the                    
             parent of the present application.                                                                    
                    The appellants admitted that the present application was not entitled to the                   
             effective filing date of their provisional application, however, they argued that the                 
             provisional application “establishes a constructive reduction to practice or conception               
             with diligence prior to the filing date of Comita,” and therefore bars Comita from being              








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007