Appeal No. 2005-0931
Application 10/006,679
Accordingly, on this record, we find that one skilled in the art following Araki’s directive
to precisely control the temperature of the substrate would have reasonably arrived at the
identical or substantial process specified in and thus, the identical or substantially identical
product encompassed by appealed claim 1.
Accordingly, we have again evaluated all of the evidence of anticipation and of
obviousness found in Araki the applied prior art with appellants’ countervailing evidence of and
argument for non-anticipation and nonobviousness, and based thereon we and conclude that the
claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 1 and 2 would have been anticipated as a
matter of fact under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and would have been obvious as a matter of law under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (effective September 13, 2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(August 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)).
AFFIRMED
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007