Appeal No. 1998-0038
Application No. 08/236,780
(e.g., see the Abstract and lines 43-47 in column 6). This
method includes forming a plasma of charged ions and directing
these ions onto the contaminated substrate using an energy
range of, for example, 1 to 10 electron volts (e.g., see lines
32-58 in column 5). Further, patentee expressly teaches that
his method removes contaminants by chemical as well as
physical action (e.g., see lines 54-62 in column 5). We agree
with the examiner's basic position that Champetier's
aforementioned teachings would have suggested using patentee's
method in order to remove contaminants from cryogenic cooling
systems, particularly in light of the previously discussed
express teaching in column 6, and that the resulting method
would correspond to the method respectively defined by
appealed independent claims 1, 5, and 16.
In support of their opposing view, the appellants set
forth the following argument on page 4 of the brief:
Furthermore, and in order to focus on the
specific teachings of the Champetier patent that are
relevant to the patentability of the present
invention, it is respectfully submitted that the
Champetier patent states the following at column 5,
lines 44-49.
"Similarly, although particles exhibiting a broad
range of energies may be selected to practice the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007