Appeal No. 2002-1640
Application No. 09/296,806
of Tietz. We agree with appellants’ comments in this regard.
Hence, we determine that the examiner’s rejection does not
fulfill the basic requirements stated in the case of Graham v.
John Deere Co., 86 S.Ct. 684, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459,
467 (1966)(Obviousness under § 103 is a legal conclusion based
upon facts revealing the scope and content of prior art, the
differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, the
level of ordinary skill in the art, and objective evidence of
nonobviousness [emphasis added]). Also, as stated supra,
because the applied art does not yield structure capable of
performing the functional limitations of the means being
claimed, the prior art cannot meet the claims. In re Mott, 557
F.2d 266, 269, 194 USPQ 305, 307 (CCPA 1977).
Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, that the combination
yields an apparatus for thin film growth (which it does not, as
a matter of fact and law, as discussed above), the rejection
does not explain how the applied art makes it obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to make the selection of the type of
materials for the susceptor and the lift pin such that the lift
pin is made of a base material lower in thermal conductivity
than a base material of the susceptor. In this regard, it
appears that the examiner’s reasoning is that the particular
type of material used for a susceptor and lift pin is known in
the art and therefore it would have been obvious to choose the
type of materials claimed by appellants for the susceptor and
lift pin.(Paper No. 11, pages 3-4 and answer, pages 4-7).
Formulating a position most favorable to the examiner, the
applied art sets forth use of lift pins and a susceptor. The
lift pins can be made of silicon carbide or ceramic. The
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007