Appeal 2006-2988
Application 10/107,322
the same in all respects but has a fuel tank containing 90% gasoline and 10%
ethanol. Clearly, such a distinction is not patentable under current patent
jurisprudence.
As for the § 103 rejection, Appellants advance essentially the same
unconvincing argument discussed above. Significantly, Appellants do not
contest the Examiner’s legal conclusion that it would have been obvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the electromagnetic field
generation means taught by Ke in the apparatus of Moriya, nor the legal
conclusion that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
art to employ the robotic transport and load-lock chamber means disclosed
by Hasegawa in the apparatus of Moriya. Also, with respect to the § 103
rejection, Appellants base no argument upon objective evidence of
nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007