Appeal No. 1998-0040 Page 5
Application No. 08/068,753
The examiner has failed to provide any support for the
statement that “it would have been obvious to place these
parts in a cabinet below the deposition chamber” (answer, page
3). Nor has the examiner fairly explained why the disparate
teachings of Rubin, Gallego and Takahashi would have led one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Riley
so as to arrive at the claimed subject matter, including the
above-noted limitations. “It is well established that before
a conclusion of obviousness may be made based on a combination
of references, there must have been a reason, suggestion or
motivation to lead an inventor to combine those references.”
Pro-Mold and Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics Inc., 75 F.3d
1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The
examiner has only made general statements regarding the vapor
coating art and alleged advantages of modular construction
taught by Rubin, Takahashi and Gallego (answer, page 3)
without specifying why one of ordinary skill in the art would
it is noted that “the pyrolytic vapor generating module” as
recited in claim 20 has no clear antecedent support. Prior to
the final disposition of this application, the examiner, with
the help of appellant, should review claim 20 and determine
whether or not an amendment is necessary to resolve any
ambiguity relating to the use of the above-noted term.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007