Appeal No. 1998-1872
Application No. 08/568,285
Claim 4
Appellants assert (Brief, page 11) that the “second secondary pump” -- pump 3 in
Figure 1 of Baret, as contemplated by the rejection -- is not disclosed or suggested as
comprising two portions: a turbomolecular blade type portion; and a Holweck type portion.
The examiner responds (Answer, page 5) that Baret, in particular at column 3, lines 17
through 21, discloses that pump 3 is composed of two stages, with a turbomolecular blade
pump as a first stage and a second stage that may be either a turbomolecular blade pump
or of the Holweck type. However, we agree with appellants that the plain language of the
Baret reference discloses that the “pump,” rather than a “stage,” may be either a
turbomolecular blade pump or of the Holweck type, and thus fails to meet the requirements
of claim 4. Since the examiner has not provided any extrinsic evidence to show that the
plain language of the Baret reference is in error, and has not supplied any rationale
whereby the references may have suggested modification of pump 3 of Baret along the
lines of instant claim 4, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 4, nor claim 5 dependent
therefrom.
CONCLUSION
We have affirmed the section 103 rejection of claims 1-3, but have reversed the
rejection of claims 4 and 5. The examiner’s decision in rejecting claims 1-5 is thus
affirmed-in-part.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007