Appeal No. 2002-1760
Serial No. 09/355,509
rotary table, and a device (17) for moving a wafer boat from the
rotary table into the reactor and from the reactor to the rotary
table, and 3) a cooling compartment (col. 2, lines 35-64;
figure 1).
Thus, to arrive at the appellants’ claimed apparatus,
Zinger’s apparatus must be modified either by including a second
reactor in the reactor/lift device compartment or by including in
the cooling compartment an upper level containing a reactor.
The examiner argues, in reliance upon In re Harza, 274 F.2d
669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), that an additional reactor in
Zinger’s processing chamber would be a mere duplication of parts
and, therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art (answer, page 6).
The court in Harza stated that the only difference between
the reference’s structure for sealing concrete and that of
Harza’s claim 1 was that the reference’s structure had only a
single rib (i.e., arm) on each side of a web, whereas the claim
required a plurality of such ribs. See Harza, 274 F.2d at 671,
124 USPQ at 380. The court stated that “[i]t is well settled
that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance
unless a new and unexpected result is produced, and we are of the
opinion that such is not the case here.” Id.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007