Appeal No. 1998-0040 Page 4
Application No. 08/068,753
We agree with the examiner (answer, page 4) that Riley
teaches the use of separate vapor generating and deposition
chambers and that the claims on appeal are not limited to a
particular type of attachment between the claimed modules
based on the relative ease of attachment and detachment.
Nonetheless, we point out that in a rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, it is fundamental that all elements recited in each
claim must be considered and given appropriate effect by the
examiner in judging the patentability of that claim against
the prior art. See In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1262-63, 180
USPQ 789, 791 (CCPA 1974). Here, the examiner’s rejection set
forth in the answer fails to meet that basic test for the
presentation of a sustainable § 103 rejection.
In this regard, we note that all of the claims on appeal
require that the pyrolysis chamber and the vaporization
chamber are disposed within a housing. Moreover, each of the
appealed claims requires that the deposition chamber module
includes a deposition chamber attached to a base cabinet. See
independent claims 20 and 27. 3
3While we find that claim 20 is sufficiently definite to
resolve the merits of the § 103 issues raised on this appeal,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007