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).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013