Appeal No. 1999-2335
Application No. 08/449,809
wherein we sustained the rejection of claims 1-7, 10-12 and
14-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. It is the appellant’s position that the3
panel erred in agreeing with the examiner that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
Turner system by replacing the shelves upon which the
substrates are supported during heating with the open trays of
Yamabe. Upon reconsideration of this decision in the light of
the presentation made by the appellant in the Request for
Rehearing, we have come to the conclusion that our original
decision on this matter should be modified in conformance with
the following comments.
Independent claim 1 is exemplary of the appellant’s
invention, in that it requires that there be a substrate
holding stack adapted to hold the substrates in a spaced
generally “open stacked configuration” such that the sides of
the substrates directly opposite one another are able to
directly transfer heat between adjacent substrates. All of
3Not sustained were rejections of claims 1-7 and 9-22
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs, and a
rejection of claims 9 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007