Appeal No. 2001-2650
Application No. 08/808,639
Hence, appellants conclude that there is no suggestion to
combine the references.
On pages 9-10 of the answer, the examiner rebuts and
states that each of Azuma and Shimizu is directed to the
absorption of ozone gas under pressure. The examiner also
states that it is well known that use of suction (decreases
pressure) to remove anything from a chamber increases the rate
at which the material is removed.
We must agree with the examiner that it is common
knowledge to increase the pressure if one wishes to input a
gas, and to decrease the pressure (e.g., suction) if one wishes
to remove a gas from a chamber.
Although Azuma teaches a pressure below atmospheric while
Shimizu teaches a pressure above atmospheric during the
absorption of the ozonized gas, each reference teaches the
concept of operating at a higher pressure during absorption and
operating at a lower pressure during desorption. See, for
example, column 4, lines 19-25 of Azuma, and see column 6,
lines 36-42 of Shimizu.3 In this context, we therefore find
that the combination of Shimizu in view of Azuma is
appropriate. We note that the suggestion to combine need not
be expressed and “may come from the prior art, and filtered
through the knowledge of one skilled in the art”. Motorola,
Inc. v. Interdigital Technology Corp., 121 F.3d 1461, 1472, 43
USPQ2d 1481, 1489 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In view of the above we affirm the rejection of
claims 30-35.
3 See also footnote 2.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007