Appeal No. 1999-1873 Page 4
Application No. 08/762,572
established by presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention.
See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed
subject matter. We agree.
All the claims under appeal require discharging beryllium-free air into the
environment by providing filtering for preventing contamination of the surrounding
environment by the beryllium. However, these limitations are not suggested by the
applied prior art. In that regard, while Nagata, Asakawa and Shinohara may have
taught or suggested filtering beryllium, they do not teach or suggest discharging
particulate-free air (i.e., clean air) into the environment by providing filtering for
preventing contamination of the surrounding environment by particulates. In that
regard, Shinohara teaches a process chamber 1 which is connected in a closed circuit
with dust collector 16 and blower 15. Thus, Shinohara does not suggest discharging
particulate-free air into the environment by providing filtering for preventing
contamination of the surrounding environment by particulates. Nagata teaches a
vacuum chamber 3 wherein disc 4 is cleaned by injecting N2 from gas line 2 so that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007