Appeal No. 2004-1962
Application No. 09/996,415
Soden also states that, as mentioned above, advantages of
the second embodiment include lowered temperature requirements
for heating of the material in the crucible.
The teachings of Soden that two separate power supply
sources are an alternative to one single power supply are
sufficient to support a prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellants' argument that Spahn’s configuration is adapted for
only a single power supply is not convincing because one skilled
in the art, in view of the teachings of Soden as discussed
above, would have found it obvious to have modified Spahn’s
configuration accordingly when using two separate power supplies
because Soden teaches how to accomplish this. Furthermore, the
reasons discussed in Soden for selecting the embodiment that
includes 2 separate power supply sources even further buttress
the examiner’s prima facie case.
We need not address appellants’ and the examiner’s comments
with regard to Spahn’s Figure 9 in making the determinations
discussed above. It is sufficient that Soden clearly sets forth
alternative embodiments, the first embodiment similar to the
embodiment shown in Figure 6 of Spahn and the second embodiment
wherein a vaporization heating power supply is separate from a
bias heater power supply. We find no persuasive argument made
by appellants to convince us that a modification to the
configuration of Spahn to include two separate power supplies
would not have been obvious.
In view of the above, we affirm each of the art rejections.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007