Appeal No. 1998-0411 Page 4
Application No. 08/050,078
103 rejection is not well founded. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection.
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.
For example, with regard to the process of claim 4 and
the apparatus of claim 5, the examiner has not reasonably
established how Unno together with Murakami would have
reasonably taught or suggested: (1) vertical and spaced
alignment of multiple substrates in a holder cavity, (2) the
provision of used melt receptacles having a plurality of used
melt reservoirs located below the holder, and (3) the steps or
means for rotating the holder relative to the fixed
receptacles to not only successively cause the supply of melt
from one of the fresh melt reservoirs for contact with the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007