Ex Parte Shinriki et al - Page 8

                Appeal 2007-2134                                                                                   
                Application 10/311,880                                                                             
                a rather wide range of temperatures, including temperatures up to hundreds                         
                of degrees Centigrade (Specification 7: 25 – 8: 26).  We note that the heater                      
                (12) of Kuibira is formed from a heater circuit pattern formed on a sintered                       
                ceramic surface making up part of a gas supply unit (Kuibira, col. 8, l. 35 -                      
                col. 10, l. 5).1  As evidenced by the Examples furnished in Kuibira, the                           
                heater is capable of heating the gas shower (supply) unit to 600°C.                                
                Furthermore and while not required by Appellants’ argued claims 3 and 4,                           
                Kuibira discloses that a temperature sensor and adjustment module can be                           
                employed to control the gas shower (supply) temperature (Kuibira; col. 9, l.                       
                65 – col. 10, l. 5).  Given that disclosure of Kuibira, the Examiner’s position                    
                that the heater of Kuibira is capable of functioning as claimed is reasonable.                     
                       On this record, Appellants’ unsubstantiated arguments respecting the                        
                incapability of the heater described by Kuibira to function as claimed are not                     
                persuasive of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection.  In this regard, it                  
                is well-settled that an Examiner may shift the burden to Appellants by                             
                showing how a prior art structure substantially corresponds to a claimed                           
                structure such that it would be reasonable to presume that the prior art                           
                structure would also be expected to possess a claimed function.  See In re                         
                Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d at 1432.                                                 
                       To the extent that Appellants are also asserting that the heater of                         
                Kuibira is not located as claimed; that is, on a substrate side of the gas                         
                shower (supply) unit of Kuibira (Br. 4), we disagree with that argument.  In                       
                this regard, we note that Appellants do not point to the claim term substrate                      
                                                                                                                  
                1  While representative claim 3 and separately argued claim 4 are not so                           
                limited, we note that Appellants disclose the use of an electrical (current                        
                flow) heater (15) sandwiched between ceramic plates (Specification 7:18 -                          
                8: 1 and Figs. 3 and 4).                                                                           
                                                        8                                                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013