Appeal No. 98-1292
Application No. 08/570,835
the next step, that is, to replace the plenum chamber of
Carne, in which the bottom and the edges are of integral one-
piece construction (Figure 2), with the O-ring system
disclosed by Meinel. We reach this conclusion because at
least one disincentive to do so exists. This is grounded in
the fact that basic to the Carne invention is that each
support module, such as disc 341 of Figure 2, is an integral
one-piece unit comprising a working surface 311 and an
upstanding flexible sealing ridge 346. To discard this one-
piece structure and to replace the sealing ridges by putting
grooves in the support surface and installing individual O-
rings in the grooves would constitute a wholesale redesign of
the Carne invention, destroying the features that are touted
as the improvements in the art provided by the invention.
From our perspective, this would deter one of ordinary skill
in the art from making the modification. Adding Effner gives
rise to this same problem. As the examiner points out, the O-
rings disclosed in Meinel are installed in grooves that have a
rectangular cross-section, and this is because Meinel teaches
that the O-rings be compressed beneath the workpiece (Figure
1B) when the vacuum is applied so that the workpiece is pulled
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007