Appeal No. 2003-0548 Page 5
Application No. 09/370,599
processing.” The examiner makes the further point that there is
“[n]othing in Sato’s disclosure to indicate that PVD and CVD
chambers must be separately connected to different transfer
chambers.” See page 5 of the answer.
On this record, we side with appellants. In particular, we
note that the examiner has not pointed to any particularized
suggestion in the teachings of the sole applied reference that
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to make the
proposed equipment modification for any purpose other than “mere
rearrangement.”
Absent further evidence or particularized factual findings
by the examiner, it is our view that the motivation for the
examiner’s stated rejection appears to come solely from
appellants’ specification and drawings. Certainly, the examiner
has not convincingly established how the applied reference would
have led a skilled artisan to the herein claimed apparatus.
Thus, the record indicates that the examiner used impermissible
hindsight when rejecting the claims. See W.L. Gore & Associates
v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984); In re Rothermel,
276 F.2d 393, 396, 125 USPQ 328, 331 (CCPA 1960). Accordingly,
on this record, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007