Appeal No. 1998-1718
Application No. 08/479,862
all oxidants from an air atmosphere to form a treated
atmosphere. We also agree with appellants that since Mimura
and Herron fail to disclose the claimed treated air
atmosphere, the references do not describe within the meaning
of § 102 performing the claimed coating step in the treated
air atmosphere. In addition, the examiner has not established
a prima facie case of obviousness for substituting the treated
air atmosphere for the vacuum of Mimura or the nitrogen
blanket of Herron. Also, we find that the examiner has not
refuted appellants' derivation at page 9 of the principal
brief, which demonstrates that the concentration of oxidants
recited in claims 19 and 21 is not met by the vacuum of
Mimura.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
PETER F. KRATZ ) BOARD OF PATENT
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007