Appeal No. 1999-1047 Page 10
Application No. 08/238,598
disclosed fluid passages with the particular construction shown in Tappan rather than other
systems, such as those described as the unsuccessful prior art in Kessler, for example.
This conclusion is not altered by considering the two Bartholomew patents, which were
cited for their teachings of controlling the temperature of elements adjacent to gas output
nozzles in deposition apparatus.
From our perspective, the only suggestion for installing the particular temperature
control system disclosed by Tappan system in the Awaya apparatus is found in the
hindsight afforded one who first viewed the appellant’s disclosure. This, of course, is not a
proper basis for a Section 103 rejection. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d
1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Thus, the references applied in this rejection fail to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21-
24, 27 30 and 31, and we will not sustain this rejection.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 23, 24, 27, 30 and 31 as being
unpatentable over Awaya in view of Bartholomew ‘020 and Kessler is sustained.
The rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21-24, 27, 30 and 31 as being
unpatentable over the conceded prior art in view of Bartholomew ‘020, Bartholomew ‘975,
Awaya and Tappan is not sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007