Appeal No. 1999-1047 Page 5
Application No. 08/238,598
USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966) and In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344
(CCPA 1968)).
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 23, 24, 27, 30 and 31 stand rejected as being
unpatentable over Awaya in view of Batholomew ‘020 and Kessler. The appellants have
chosen to group all of these claims together, and we have selected claim 3 as the
representative claim (see 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and Section 1206 of the Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure). As we understand the rejection, it is the examiner’s view that all of
the subject matter recited in claim 3 is disclosed or taught by Awaya, except for the
manner in which the gas distribution plate is constructed to form the cooling passage.
However, the examiner has taken the position that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the Awaya one-piece gas distribution plate having a fluid
passage therethrough with a two-piece plate in which a fluid passage formed in the base
is closed by a separate cover, in view of the teachings of Kessler. The appellants have
offered two arguments in rebuttal. The first is that there would have been no suggestion to
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Awaya structure in the manner proposed by the
examiner, and the second is that even if such a combination were proper, the result would
be a passage closed by a cylindrical sleeve rather than a plate, as is required by the
claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007