Appeal No. 95-2347 Page 11
Application No. 07/928,642
vessel (17). Likewise, both Kanai and Davies are directed to
reactors including plasma generation means.
Appellants appear to urge (brief, pages 7 and 8) that the
reason or motivation to modify Shibata advanced by the
examiner may be for a different purpose of preventing the
overheating of the electrodes as discussed by Kanai and
Davies, as opposed to solving the problems of the overheating
of gases passing through the gas manifold/electrode and/or the
problem of possible overcooling of outer surfaces thereof.
However, this does not detract from the combinableness of the
references. In this regard, it is not necessary that the
prior art teaches the same purpose as appellants' for arriving
at the claimed subject matter so long as a sufficient
suggestion for or motivation to do so is furnished. See In re
Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1900 (Fed. Cir.
1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) and In re Lintner,
458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
Accordingly, for the reasons advanced by the examiner as
supplemented above, we agree with the examiner's conclusions
regarding the obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of the claimed
apparatus from the combined references teachings.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007