Appeal No. 2000-0156
Application 08/531,023
with the examiner’s contention that, in context, the use of the
language “[i]n such a well known CVD apparatus,” as recited at
page 10 of the specification, line 13 would have suggested that
the disclosed Figure 1 apparatus is known in the art to be
comprised of trans-parent quartz glass for the reaction tube 10
as indicated at the bottom of page 9 of the specification, we are
persuaded by appellant’s arguments at pages 11 and 12 of the
brief on appeal.
The examiner’s position does not consider the statements in the
Summary of the Invention at page 4 that the invention comprises
essentially two features, the first being that the reaction tube is
made of transparent quartz glass, and secondly that portions of it
are sand-blasted. This same discussion is set forth in the abstract
of the invention at page 17 of the specification as filed. We also
observe that the originally filed version of claim 1 recited in the
characterization clause of this claim contains the same two
features.
We therefore conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates
to us that the feature of transparent quartz glass in the body of
claim 6 on appeal is not disclosed in specification as a whole in
the context of being part of the prior art but, on the contrary, it
is disclosed to be a part of appellant’s disclosed invention. That
being the case, there is no applied prior art before us that teaches
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007