Appeal No. 2003-1162 Page 20
Application No. 09/468,292
Appellant’s argument (Answer, p. 21-22). We incorporate the Examiner’s response herein and
add the following for emphasis.
Frigo suggests more than what Appellant characterizes the reference as teaching: The
point of selecting a “liquid of relatively low volatility” is to avoid its vaporization. Frigo states
that “[t]he liquid of relatively low volatility does not vaporize to any considerable extent and thus
does not form a major constituent of the carrier gas leaving the bubbler.” (Frigo, col. 4, ll. 59-62).
Implicit in this statement is the idea that vaporized liquid is an undesirable constituent of the
carrier gas. The less of the liquid solvent that vaporizes, the less contamination of the carrier gas
there will be.
There is a suggestion to fill the need implicitly expressed in Frigo. Freemantle indicates
that an important advantage of ionic fluids is that they have “no measurable vapor pressure.”
(Freemantle, p. 32, col. 1, ll. 11-13). In other words, none, or almost none, of the ionic liquid
will vaporize. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the value of the vapor
pressure characteristic of ionic liquids in the process of Frigo in preventing undesirable
vaporization. Thus, the teachings in the prior art, as filtered through the knowledge of one
skilled in the art, as well as the nature of the problem to be solved, provide a suggestion to use
ionic liquids to dissolve precursors in precursor vaporization methods. See Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1125, 56 USPQ2d 1456, 1459 (Fed. Cir.
2000)(The suggestion need not be express, but may come the prior art, as filtered through the
knowledge of one skilled in the art); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1582, 35 USPQ2d 1116,
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007