Appeal No. 1999-0406
Application 08/484,019
USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970). In considering this question, the
patent disclosure may not be used as prior art. Id.
According to the examiner,
[t]he U.S. Patent ‘556 discloses a vapor
generator surface having randomly defined ridges and
grooves whose height and depth vary substantially
randomly. Friedheim ‘037 discloses a vapor
generator surface having randomly etched cavities
having random diameters and widths. In view of
Friedheim ‘037 who teaches a superheated vapor
generator having cavities, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
[a] vapor generator surface having the combination
of both surfaces having grooves, ridges and
cavities/holes to improve producing superheated
vapors [final rejection, page 2].
This rationale is unsound for at least two reasons. To
begin with, the examiner has improperly relied on the
disclosure of Friedheim ‘556 to support the rejection.
Moreover, Friedheim ‘037 is devoid of any suggestion to
combine grooves/ridges and cavities/holes as proposed by the
examiner. Given these fundamental flaws in the examiner’s
analysis, we shall not sustain the standing obviousness-type
double patenting rejection of claims 1 through 10, 13, 19
through 24 and 34 through 39.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007