Appeal No. 1997-0858 Application No. 08/323,065 Specifically, it is the examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to provide the Harada process with a pressure differential between the substrate region and the evaporation source region in view of DeLozanne's teaching. Central to the examiner's rejection, however, is the implicit proposition that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use the pressure differ-ential concept taught by DeLozanne but not the specific pressures taught by DeLozanne since these pressures do not correspond to those here claimed. Instead, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for the artisan in applying DeLozanne's pressure differential concept to Harada's process to employ as a background pressure (such as the pressure in the evaporation source region) the specific pressure taught by Wang. As for the appellant's claimed pressure in the substrate region, it is significant that none of the here applied references explicitly teach a substrate 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007