Appeal No. 2005-0786
Application No. 09/832,168
For emphasis, we note that the teachings of Gauthier are
crucial to the rejection at issue. However, as explained by
appellants, the instant claims distinguish over Gauthier by
requiring use of a valve which has one input and two outputs for
alternatively feeding vapor to a processing system, e.g., a CVD
chamber, or a bypass line, and by requiring a controller capable
of switching the valve between each of the two outputs. The
comparable three-way valve in Gauthier, i.e., valve 174, is
taught as having a different configuration, viz. two inputs and
only one output.
The examiner alleges that the input 176 to Gauthier valve
174 is capable of functioning as an output when valves 160, 152
and 142 are closed. However, as appellants explain, the examiner
has not established that Gauthier valve 174 is capable of
functioning as claimed or, even if system line pressures were
favorable, that the particular three-way valve taught by Gauthier
could necessarily function as a two output-one input valve.
The requirements set forth in appellants’ claims for a valve
having a first output connected to a processing system and a
second output connected to a bypass line, and for a controller
capable of switching the valve between each of the two outputs,
are certainly more than mere statements of intended use.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007