Appeal No. 1998-0097
Application No. 08/513,036
aforenoted test for determining written description
compliance.
Under the circumstances recounted above, we cannot
sustain the Examiner's § 112, first paragraph, rejection of
claims 5, 7, 17 and 18 as lacking written description support
in the originally filed disclosure of this application for the
now claimed invention.
THE SECTION 103 REJECTIONS
Concerning the § 103 rejection of claim 5 over Heyen, the
Examiner urges, inter alia, that it is routine in the art to
optimize such parameters as the partial pressure for arsine
gas and accordingly that it would have been obvious for one
with ordinary skill in the art to so optimize this parameter
in the method of Heyen to thereby obtain arsine gas partial
pressures within the here claimed range. As indicated by the
Appellants on page 12 of their brief, however, the partial
pressure of arsine gas used by Heyen is disclosed in Figure 4
of the reference as being 6 x 10 bar which (according to the-3
Appellants and not disputed by the Examiner) is equal to
approximately 4.5 Torr and thus is orders of magnitude larger
than the here claimed partial pressures of arsine gas.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007