Appeal No. 1996-3659
Application No. 08/237,484
the above considerations, we conclude that the thin films
deposited on the substrate are not a porous zeolitic film as
required by the claimed subject matter.
Furthermore, our analysis and conclusions extend to
claims 10 through 18. It has not been shown that the
combination of references result in a sensor having a
piezoelectric substrate with the requisite porous zeolitic
film coated thereon. Based upon the above analysis, we have
determined that the examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness
is not supported by the facts. “Where the legal conclusion is
not supported by the facts it cannot stand.” In re Warner,
379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967).
The Section 103 Rejection over Venkatesan in view of Bein
In viewing the references as a whole, the examiner has
not adequately explained why it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the method of
Venkatesan with the sensor of Bein. Venkatesan prepares a
thin film using vapor deposition techniques. A pellet of a
complex material, wholly unrelated to a zeolite, is irradiated
and deposited in the form of a thin film on a substrate. In
contrast, Bein prepares a molecular sieve sensor of chemically
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007