Appeal No. 2003-1362
Application No. 09/178,399
no need for combining. Additionally, although Golecki may not
specify using a weighing device as a preferred embodiment,
Golecki does teach an embodiment including an in-situ weighing
device 13, as shown in Figure 1. Accordingly, the skilled
artisan would have used the teachings of the secondary references
as better methods of weighing for that embodiment of Golecki.
Appellant further argues (Brief, pages 10-11) that "[t]he
secondary references do not deal with a method of weight gain of
a substrate in a CVI process or the weighing of an entire
furnace" and, therefore, "are consequently not in the field of
the applicant's endeavors." Appellant asserts (Brief, page 11
and Reply Brief, page 3) that the secondary references do not
deal with the problem appellant was concerned with, namely
determining the weight change in the parts during processing of
the parts in a CVI/CVD furnace.
We agree with appellant that the secondary references may
not be in appellant's field of endeavor. However, we disagree
with appellant's characterization of the problem solved, and thus
with the conclusion that the references do not deal with the same
problem as that which concerned appellant. Appellant did not
solve the problem of continuously weighing the parts during
processing in a CVI/CVD furnace, as Golecki teaches such
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007