Appeal 2007-1170
Application 10/971,698
to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at __, 127 S.Ct. at 1731, 82
USPQ2d at 1389.
We observe that Freeman has not made any arguments that
unexpected results or other "secondary considerations" rebut any prima facie
case of obviousness. Moreover, we find no experimental results that differ
from the results reported in Freeman 013. Thus, on the present record, there
is no evidence of unexpected results. Based on the foregoing
considerations, we need not analyze the teachings of Spahn, Hanson, and
Shen, although we agree that Spahn, in particular, provides guidance that the
size and position of the baffle relative to the evaporating material and the
aperture can be varied to advantage. However, because all the teachings
necessary to conclude that the claimed invention would have been prima
facie obvious can be found in Freeman 013 itself, the Examiner's reliance on
the additional cases was harmless. We therefore need not address Freeman's
objections to the secondary references.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the rejection by the Examiner of
claims 1-18 as obvious over Freeman 013.
As our reasoning is considerably more detailed than the Examiner's,
and involves issues not clearly discussed in the record, we denominate our
disposition of this appeal a "new ground of rejection" under
37 CFR § 41.50(b), in order to afford Freeman a full and fair opportunity to
respond.
In the event of further prosecution, we invite the Examiner and
Freeman to consider the following possible claim interpretation and its
consequences, which do not seem to have been broached in the prosecution
of this application. When considering an application for patent, "the PTO
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013