Appeal No. 1997-3304 Page 11
Application No. 08/181,936
trap (appellants' prior art disclosure), would have found in
Philipossian an obvious solution to that problem, i.e. a pipe
tapering in the direction of theoretical flow stream lines
that reduces the pressure of the vapor before entry thereof
into the trap chamber (Philipossian's Figs. 1, 2, 9 and 10)
rather than a pipe ending in sharp corners (Philipossian's
Fig. 8 and appellants' admitted prior art). Thus, it would
have been obvious to provide the chemical vapor deposition
trap of the admitted prior art with a tapered pipe outlet
coupled to the inlet of the trap chamber, following the
teaching of Philipossian.
Claims 2 and 9 recite the additional limitation that the
first pipe is linearly tapered. This limitation would have
been suggested by Philipossian's cone-like shape (40) (col. 5,
line 19) which, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2, is linearly
tapered.
While on page 4 of the appellants' brief it is indicated
that they have enjoyed commercial success in practicing claim
1 of the present invention, we find that no evidence of such
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007