Appeal No. 1998-1872
Application No. 08/568,285
the arguments may have been submitted in support of the premise that the rejection is
based on improper hindsight, we find them unpersuasive for any purpose. Appellants
appear to recast the rejection in order to allege deficiencies in a new, different rejection, in
particular focusing on the functions of Baret that are separate from Baret’s description of
pre-evacuation.
We find that Saulgeot, at column 2, lines 50 through 58 discloses that part 9 (Figure
2) is initially evacuated by primary pump 5 working through valve 2, and then by primary
pump 5 and turbomolecular pump 7 working in series via valves 3 and 12. There is thus a
distinct phase of evacuation of the part under test. Baret discloses, at column 3, lines 32
through 42, a “pre-evacuation” in a distinct phase comprised of two stages. Dry primary
pump 4 (Figure 1) evacuates the test piece at inlet 5 via valves 7 and 10, and then works in
series with mechanical secondary pump 3 via valve 7. Thus Baret, as does Saulgeot,
discloses a distinct phase of evacuation. The evacuation phases can be considered apart
-- in effect, independent -- from the later testing phases, as far as the teachings of the
references are concerned. Appellants’ characterization on page 2 of the Reply Brief is
contrary to the disclosure of Baret, and contrary in particular to column 3, lines 32 through
42. We disagree with appellants’ assessment that “[t]here is no reference to the pumps 3
and 4 as a set, nor any description of them working as a set.”
While we recognize that replacing Saulgeot’s primary pump 5 with a mechanical
pump and a dry primary pump in series might not result in a system that is suitable for
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007