Appeal 2007-2179
Application 10/247,825
contains no teaching or suggestion of combining the teachings of Landau or
Wang with those of Ikeda to thereby achieve the apparatus defined by claims
8-10 and 12 (Appeal Br. 10-12, 16-18; Reply Br. 2-4). This argument is
unpersuasive.
Landau teaches that the vibrational agitation member 82 comprises a
vibrational transducer (col. 9, ll. 62-64) and Wang teaches that "[a]ny
vibration inducing device that applies sufficient vibration to the substrate is
within the scope of one embodiment of vibration inducing device" (col. 15,
ll. 52-54). In light of these teachings, an artisan would have used a vibrating
transducer having an induction coil with a high frequency power source as
the vibrating device of Landau or Wang in view of Ikeda's teaching (Fig. 15,
col. 6, ll. 66- col. 7, l. 7) that such a transducer is known in the prior art as an
effective vibrating device.
We conclude that this combination of prior art teachings is likely to be
obvious because it combines familiar elements (i.e., the apparatus with
vibrating device of Landau or Wang and Ikeda's vibrating transducer with
induction coil and high frequency power source) according to known
methods (i.e., the connection of vibrating device to apparatus as taught by
Landau or Wang) to thereby yield no more than predictable results (i.e., the
vibration desired by Landau or Wang via the aforementioned vibrating
transducer of Ikeda). See KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (“The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results”).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013