Appeal No. 1999-1047 Page 8
Application No. 08/238,598
over the prior art systems are that it is highly efficient, is readily constructed, and is easy to
install and use (column 2, lines 17-23). While the purpose of the inventive construction was
to cool the O-ring seals 16 in the base part, it is our view that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that this is accomplished by cooling at least a portion of the tube
structure.
From our perspective, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found explicit
suggestion in Kessler to modify the Awaya gas distribution plate in the manner proposed
by the examiner, that is, forming the fluid passage as a groove in the outer surface of the
element and then sealing it by installing over it a cover plate which also carries the fluid
inlet and outlet. Suggestion for this is found in the explicit advantages recited by Kessler in
column 2. The appellants have not challenged the examiner’s statement that Bartholomew
‘020 teaches it was known in the prior art at the time of the appellants’ invention that in
systems in which tungsten silicide is deposited the reactant gases must be kept cool
immediately prior to the deposition. We therefore consider Bartholomew ‘020 to be
evidence of the need to keep the reactive gases used in this type of apparatus cool until
that time.
For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the combined teachings of
Awaya, Kessler and Bartholomew ‘020 establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007