Appeal No. 1997-0350
Application No. 08/191,384
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we find ourselves in agreement with
appellants that the prior art cited by the examiner fails to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed
subject matter. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection.
The examiner recognizes that Law, the sole reference
relied upon, "does not disclose positioning the throttle valve
juxtaposed to the deposition chamber" (page 2 of final
rejection). Notwithstanding this lack of disclosure in Law2
of appellants' departure from the admitted prior art, it is
the examiner's position that the claimed positioning of the
throttle valve would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art since Law teaches that the disclosed
localized etch proceeds at a faster rate than the extended
etch which cleans the throttle valve. Based on this reference
teaching, the examiner concludes that "faster etch cleaning of
the throttle valve could be accomplished by bringing the
throttle valve within range of the localized etching process"
2The Examiner's Answer incorporated by reference the
final rejection.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007