Appeal 2006-2592 Application 10/035,535 (1966). The analysis supporting obviousness should be made explicit, and should “identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements” in the manner claimed. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1731, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1389 (2007). Applying the preceding legal principles to the factual findings in the record of this appeal, we determine that the Examiner has properly established a prima facie case of obviousness, which prima facie case has not been adequately rebutted by any evidence or arguments. As shown by factual findings (1) and (2) listed above, we determine that Ishikawa discloses every limitation of claim 1 on appeal except the required pressure of “substantially greater than 1.013x102 kPa” (Answer 3).2 As shown by factual finding (3) listed above, we determine that Ishikawa does not suggest that developments flowing from its disclosure are unlikely to produce the objective of Appellants’ invention, namely, to improve chlorine doping levels (Specification 1:25 to 2:2). We determine that Ishikawa suggests that higher partial pressures of chlorine-containing gas will be effective but would require modification of the furnace structure to contain high pressure gases (see factual finding (3) listed above). Thus, we determine that Ishikawa does not teach away from the claimed subject matter.3 We determine that claiming a range of pressure that differs slightly from the prior art pressure range would have been prima facie obvious. See 2 Appellants assert that all pending claims stand or fall together (Br. 3). Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 and limit our consideration to this claim. 3 We note that Appellants follow the teachings of Ishikawa by using higher chlorine gas partial pressures, which require modification of the conventional furnace structure (Specification 5:5-8). 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013