Appeal No. 2005-1089
Application No. 09/947,454
V. claims 16 through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ramm in view of Blalock (id. at 6-
7); and
VI. claims 22 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ramm in view of Ramalingam (id. at
7).
We reverse these rejections.
Regarding the examiner’s rejections of appealed claim 1
over Ramm, the principal prior art reference, the appellants
argue (substitute appeal brief filed on July 1, 2004 at 7):
In contrast [to the claimed invention], the Ramm
patent does not disclose a work piece support which
is: 1) separably linked to a receiving device; 2)
removable from the treatment chamber via a laterally-
extending closeable opening; and wherein 3) the work
piece support is separated from the receiving device
by raising it off the upper end of the receiving
device, as provided in claim 1 of the application.
Indeed, in Ramm, it appears that the electrically
conducting supports (35) that are used to rotatably
support the work pieces (3) are never separable from
the rotary table (37) to which they are coupled, that
the rotary table is never separable from the vacuum
chamber, and that Ramm’s vacuum chamber lacks any
laterally-extending closeable opening through which
any of such components could be removed.
(See also id. at 6 and reply brief filed on October 4, 2004.)
The examiner, on the other hand, alleges: “Regarding
‘separably linked’ it is inherent that the work support could be
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007