Appeal No. 1999-0801
Application 08/552,245
at 1783, and in any event, without motivation to centrally locate the inert gas inlet, the resulting
apparatus would not result in an apparatus that meets the limitations of appellants’ claims. See
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1050-54, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438-41 (Fed.
Cir. 1988).
In comparing the apparatus as specified in the appealed claims as we have interpreted them
above to the prior art apparatus in specification Figure 2, which we find to be the closest prior art, we
observe that the examiner has not advanced a supported position that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have modified the surfaces of gas baffle 11 shown therein.5
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
Reversed
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
CHUNG K. PAK ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
detail (e.g., col. 3, lines 43-47).
5 Appellants describe the “novelty of the present invention” with respect to prior art Figure 2 as “being
mainly the absence of through hole 9 and protruding screw heads 21” (brief, page 4). While there is a
space in gas baffle 11 which is associated with numeral 9 in Figure 2 in this application, there is no
discussion thereof in the written description of the specification, and we observe that Figure 2 as it
appears in United States Patent 6,030,508 which issued from application 08/552,245, a division of the
present application, contains neither a space nor numeral 9.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007