Appeal No. 2000-1042
Application No. 08/986,449
Chan et al. (Chan ‘429) 5,580,429 Dec. 3, 1996
Fetherston et al. (Fetherston) 5,693,376 Dec. 2, 1997
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Cabrera alone or considered with Fetherston, Conrad,
Chan ‘920, Chan ‘429, and Leung.
In addition, the examiner has rejected claims 4-6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Cabrera in view of Heyse and
Gandman or alternatively over Cabrera in view of Heyse and
Gandman and further in view of Fetherston, Conrad, Chan ‘920,
Chan ‘429, and Leung.
OPINION
None of the above noted rejections can be sustained.
As his primary prior art teaching, the examiner relies upon
the disclosure in column 1 of Cabrera regarding prior art methods
of reducing coke formation on metal surfaces exposed to
hydrocarbon at high temperatures which methods include the ion
implantation of silicon (see lines 11-49 in column 1). On pages
5 and 6 of the answer, the examiner presents the following
exposition in support of his conclusion that it would have been
obvious to modify this prior art ion implantation method in order
to result in the appellants’ claimed method:
It is acknowledged that the reference does not
teach the process steps employed in ion implantation,
i.e. the providing implanting apparatus, operating said
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007