Appeal No. 1998-1635
Application No. 08/470,596
It is well established that the Examiner has the initial burden under § 103 to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72,
223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). To that end, the Examiner must show that
some objective teaching or suggestion in the applied prior art, or knowledge
generally available in the art would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
arrive at the claimed invention. Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics,
Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Claims 24, 27, 28, 30-32, 34, 38, 39 and 41 to 48 are rejected as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Aida I, Aida II and
Asmussen. Claims 24 and 28 are the only independent appealed claims and we
therefore will limit our discussion to these claims. Upon careful review of the
entire record including the respective positions advanced by Appellants and the
Examiner, we find that the Examiner has not carried his burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 24 and 28 are drawn to chemical vapor reaction method capable of
cyclotron resonance. Cyclotron resonance occurs when microwaves energize a
reactive gas into a plasma state. Cyclotron resonance plasma is generated by
electronic discharge resulting from collision of electrons within the hydrocarbon
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007