Appeal No. 95-3422
Application 07/891,132
chlorosilane and hydrogen gases at temperatures greater than
about 600 C” (Claim 1), the walls of which had been made ofO
silicon carbide coated graphite or carbon material (Levin,
col. 3, l. 58-63), and/or its “heating element” (Claim 4),
which had been made of silicon carbide and/or silicon nitride
(Richerson, col. 2, l. 24-27 and 49-55), from the same
commercially available material. The examiner’s finding is
clearly erroneous. For obviousness under section 103, the
prior art “teachings . . . can be combined only if there is
some suggestion or incentive to do so.” In re Fine, supra.
Here, the teachings provide no suggestion or incentive to use
the commercially available material for any reason. We might
speculate as to possible reasons for the substitution.
However, we find that the examiner’s basis for the
substitution is the hindsight of appellants’ disclosure rather
than any prior art teachings. Moreover, there is no evidence
of record that
persons having ordinary skill in the art were aware of
problems associated with Levin’s reaction vessel or the
graphite heating elements used in Levin’s reactor. Absent
recognition of problems with Levin’s reactor or heating
elements, we fail to see why persons having ordinary skill in
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007