Appeal No. 2005-2013 Page 4
Application No. 10/140,324
Druckmaschinen AG v. Hantscho Commercial Prods., Inc., 21 F.3d 1068, 1072, 30
USPQ2d 1377, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (When the patent invention is made by combining
known components to achieve a new system, the prior art must provide a suggestion, or
motivation to make such a combination.); Northern Telecom v. Datapoint Corp., 908
F.2d 931, 934, 15 USPQ2d 1321, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (It is insufficient to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness based on prior art references disclosing the
components of a patented device, either separately or used in other combinations; there
must be some teaching, suggestion, or incentive to make the combination made by the
inventor.); Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ
1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The independent claims 1, 7 and 17 all require a face plate having a plurality of
holes formed there through, each hole including a restrictive section, a center passage
section, and an opening section, an annular body having a first end coupled to a first
side of the face plate, a mounting flange coupled to a second end of the annular body,
and an annular lip extending from a second side of the face plate opposite the mounting
flange.
The Examiner asserts that the combination of Hills and Murakami teaches the
features of the claimed invention because it is obvious to substitute holes 174 on a gas
distribution plate 170 of Hills with holes (29, 21a/21b) of Murakami and add a hatched
portion beside a gas injector head 5 in Figure 1 of Murakami to the gas distribution plate
170 of Hills. The Examiner further asserts that the holes (29, 21a/21b) of Murakami
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007