Appeal No. 1998-0411 Page 6
Application No. 08/050,078
As evident by a review of claim 6, the recited apparatus
is required to include, inter alia:
a cap attached onto the upper surface of said
fresh melt receptacle, having half-notched shaft
means extending downwardly therefrom,
a cover attached onto the upper surface of said
crystalline substrate holder, having half-notched
shaft means extending upwardly therefrom, and
an axially disposed hole at the central part of
said fresh melt receptacle, for receiving said half-
notched shaft of the cap downwardly thereinto and
said half-notched shaft of the cover upwardly
thereinto,
The examiner’s bald assertions that “[i]t is well known
in the art to cover LPE melts so as to prevent loss of
materials from the melt” and “[f]urther, the prior art does
teach a means
to allow opening and closing of the melts” (answer, pages 6
and 7) do not come close to establishing the obviousness,
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, of the above-noted
limitations of claim 6, let alone the subject matter as a
whole of that claim.
Consequently, we are in agreement with appellants’
conclusion that the examiner has not set forth a prima facie
case of obviousness. See, e.g., pages 12-18 of appellants’
brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007