Appeal No. 1998-1872
Application No. 08/568,285
appellants’ disclosed purposes, we agree with the examiner that such a combination was
suggested by the references and meets all the requirements of instant claim 1.
At the oral hearing appellants’ counsel expressed agreement with our finding that
the artisan would have regarded the mechanical primary pump 5 disclosed by Saulgeot to
be representative of mechanical primary pumps inclusive of the mechanical pumps using
oil seals, as described in the Baret reference. Baret’s teachings directed to replacement
of such pumps with a dry primary pump connected in series with a mechanical pump would
have motivated the artisan to replace such a mechanical pump having an oil seal.
While the prior art may have suggested a combination as proposed by appellants
on page 2 of the Reply Brief, that theory is not dispositive. The teachings of the references
would have suggested the combination submitted by the examiner. Whether the
references might also have suggested other combinations that are outside the scope of
the instant claims does not weaken the findings supporting the conclusion of prima facie
obviousness of the subject matter as a whole.
Appellants submit another argument, as discussed in particular on pages 9 and 10
of the Brief and expanded in the Reply Brief. Appellants propose that Saulgeot’s system,
with mechanical primary pump 5 working alone and then in series with turbomolecular
pump 7, already solves the problems that Baret teaches as existing in the prior art. We
are cognizant of that possibility, but our evaluation of the evidence before us leads us to
conclude that the weight of the evidence establishes a prima facie case for obviousness.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007