Appeal No. 2004-0630
Application No. 09/755,177
recited in claim 7 seemingly would correspond to Kashiwase's
ultra pure water supply pipe 36 as pointed out by the examiner
(e.g., see page 5 of the Answer). Though not explicitly required
by appealed claim 7, this pipe 36 would be used separately from
ozone-plus-water supply pipe 38 for the purpose of performing
Kashiwase's ultra pure water rinsing step (see lines 63-64 in
column 6).
Under the circumstances recounted above, it is our
determination that the reference evidence adduced by the examiner
establishes a prima facie case of anticipation with respect to
the independent claim on appeal which the appellant has failed to
successfully rebut with argument and/or evidence to the contrary.
We shall sustain, therefore, the examiner's § 102 rejection of
claims 7-11 as being anticipated by Kashiwase. See In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444.
Regarding the § 103 rejection of dependent claim 12, the
appellant's sole argument is that "the Examiner has not
identified all the requisite elements in Kashiwase or any other
document of record as required by 35 U.S.C. § 103" (Brief, page
11). It is not immediately apparent to us what relevance this
argument has to the obviousness issue raised by the examiner's
rejection of claim 12. This claim requires a concentration of
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007