Appeal No. 96-3512
Application 08/235,623
reduced maintenance.” In light of these stated advantages, the
provision of the “member” being self-supported on or against the
wall of the reaction chamber cannot simply be dismissed as a
“design expedient” as the examiner purposes.
With respect to claims 8 and 17, we have carefully reviewed
the teachings of Deaton but find nothing therein which would
overcome the basic deficiencies of Lau that we have noted above.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of (1) claims 1-7, 9-16 and 18-20 based on the combined
disclosures of Lau and Yamazaki and (2) claims 8 and 17 based on
the combined disclosures of Lau, Yamazaki and Deaton.
In summary, all of the above-noted rejections are reversed.
REVERSED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JAMES M. MEISTER ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007