Appeal No. 2000-1164 Page 8
Application No. 08/899,176
described by Eitoku would have been obtained by using DI water
and chemicals in the scrubbing step in the method set forth in
Eitoku.
In light of the above and for reasons as set forth in the
answer, appellants’ generalized unsubstantiated contentions to
the contrary are not found to be persuasive. We shall,
therefore, sustain the examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1, 2,
6, 8, 9 and 15 over Eitoku.
§ 103 Rejection Over Eitoku and the admitted prior art
Appellants do not argue for the patentability of
representative claim 13 based on the pressure recited therein.
Nor do appellants dispute with any particularity the examiner’s
determination that the scrubbing pressure recited in
representative claim 13 is well-known as acknowledged by
appellants. Rather, appellants urge that the ion doping step of
claim 8, from which claim 13 depends, is not suggested by the
applied references. However, for the reasons advanced above and
in the answer, we find that Eitoku describes such a doping step
and consequently do not find that argument convincing.
Appellants additionally argue (brief, pages 11 and 12) that the
rejection is based on hindsight reconstruction. However, we
agree with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007