Appeal No. 2002-2273 4
Application No. 09/363,688
claimed “mixer fluidly coupled to the phosphine source and the inert substance source
to form a gaseous mixture.” We agree with appellants, however, that Schellhaas does
not include a mixer as called for in base claim 11. Given that cartridge 13 containing
the porous bed of aluminum phosphide or magnesium phosphide “serve[s] as the gas
generator vessel of the apparatus” (abstract), cartridge 13 is akin to the phosphine
source of claim 11. This being the case, there is no separate “mixer fluidly coupled to
the phosphine source” as required by claim 11. On the other hand, if we were to
consider cartridge 13 of Schellhaas as corresponding to the claimed “mixer,”
then Schellhaas would not include a separate phosphine source coupled to the mixer,
as called for in claim 11. This constitutes a first reason why we cannot sustain the
examiner’s rejection of independent claim 11, or claims 12-16, 44-46, 50 and 51 that
depend either directly or indirectly from claim 11, as being anticipated by Schellhaas.
In addition, we also are in agreement with appellants that Schellhaas does not
include a “flow controller” of the sort called for in the last paragraph of claim 11. We
appreciate that sensor 17 of Schellhaas functions to monitor the phosphine
concentration in the mixture of air and phosphine emerging from bed 14, and to trigger
the admission of an inert fluid such as carbon dioxide to the generator to stop the
production of phosphine in the event phosphine concentration rises above a
predetermined permissible limit (column 7, lines 6-35). Be that as it may, sensor 17,
either alone or in combination with throttle valve 20, does not function to control at least
one of flow of phosphine from a phosphine source “to the mixer” and flow of an inert
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007