Appeal No. 2000-0034
Application 08/473,634
process” (answer, page 6), and that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Akashi’s gas inlet
system in Mundt’s method to provide gas inlets near the plasma
to assure complete destruction of the chemical compounds
(answer, page 4).
In order for a prima facie case of obviousness to be
established, the teachings from the prior art itself must
appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner has not provided evidence or technical
reasoning which shows that Mundt and Akashi are combinable
merely because they both disclose chemical reactions.
Particularly, the examiner has not explained, taking into
account the differences in the methods of Mundt and Akashi,
e.g., that Mundt reacts the gas with a reactive mesh and
Akashi injects the gas into a plasma jet, how one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to combine the teachings
of these references. Moreover, the examiner has not provided
evidence or technical reasoning which shows any of the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007