Appeal No. 1998-0078
Application No. 08/478,814
claimed invention because the substitution of the endpoint detection system does not
address the deficiencies of Maher stated above.
In the absence of sufficient factual evidence or scientific rationale to establish why
and how a skilled artisan would have arrived at the subject matter of claim 27 from the
applied references, we find that the initial burden of establishing the prima facie
obviousness of the claimed subject matter has not been met. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections
of claim 27 are reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 26 and 27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph is reversed.
The rejection of claim 26 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Amemiya is reversed.
The rejection of claim 26 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Maher is reversed.
The rejection of claim 27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Amemiya in
view of Savage is reversed.
-12-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007