Appeal 2007-0918
Application 10/931,868
composition.1 The Examiner incorrectly asserts that the claimed invention
is directed to an apparatus (Answer 3).
The Examiner has found that Baum describes a chemical vapor
deposition apparatus comprising a deposition chamber and in
communication with the chamber a vessel outside of the chamber for
holding a precursor composition (Answer 3). The Examiner does not make
any factual determination regarding the components of the precursor
composition which is part of the claimed system.2 Moreover, the Baum
reference does not describe the same precursor composition specified in the
independent claims.3 As such, we determine that the Examiner has failed to
identify all the limitations of the appealed claims and has not established a
prima facie case of anticipation.4
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Briefs, we determine
that Baum does not describe every limitation recited in the independent
claims on appeal. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1 to 30 under
§ 102(e) over Baum.
1 The preamble of the independent claims and the Specification indicate that
the vessel containing the claimed precursor composition is in fluid
communication with the deposition chamber.
2 The Examiner contends that the type of material in the vessel does not
impart any changes to the apparatus (Answer 3).
3 Appellant contends that the chemical vapor deposition system of Baum
differs in the precursor composition (See Briefs generally).
4 A claimed invention is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 when all of the
elements of the claimed invention are found in one reference. See Scripps
Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576,
18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The prior art reference must
disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432-
33 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013