Appeal No. 98-1292
Application No. 08/570,835
claims. As pointed out by the appellant, both of the
independent claims before us require that each of the rings
within the outer periphery abut six adjacent rings to form a
continuous pattern of rings. The reason for this is to
minimize the surface area that is not placed under vacuum
(specification, page 8). Such a relationship is not
explicitly disclosed or taught, nor is it inherently present,
in any of the applied references. Only Carne recognizes this
problem, but solves it in a different fashion, by utilizing
several sizes of plenums. Thus, the structure resulting from
the examiner’s combination of references does not establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject
matter of the claims on appeal.
We also wish to note that in our view there exists no
suggestion to combine the Meinel and Effner references in the
manner proposed by the examiner. Even conceding, arguendo,
that it would have been obvious to modify Gulden by covering
substantially the entire working surface with plenums having
outer sides comprising raised ridges and a bottom formed by
the planar work surface, we fail to perceive any suggestion
which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to take
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007