Appeal 2007-0128
Reexamination Control 90/006,208
Patent 5,573,648
over Dempsey in view of Grot, Uchida or Vanderborgh and further in
view of Razaq.
Atwood claim 12 depends upon claim 1 and further requires that the sensor
be adapted to detect water vapor.
The Examiner states that Dempsey, Grot, Uchida, and Vanderborgh do not
explicitly identify water vapor as the gas being detected. (Examiner’s Answer, p.
7). The Examiner cites Razaq as teaching that it was known in the art to adapt gas
sensors to detect water vapor. (Id.).
Atwood’s arguments with respect to claim 12 are similar to those with
respect to claims 10 and 11 discussed above. Generally, Atwood argues that there
is no suggestion in Dempsey to use the electrodes of Grot, Uchida and/or
Vanderborgh and Razaq fails to cure this deficiency. (Appeal Br., p. 65).
Razaq describes a gas sensor that is utilized to detect moisture. (Razaq,
Abstract). We find that Razaq confirms that one skilled in the art was well aware
that water vapor can be detected using a gas sensor. Razaq also teaches that the
presence of water vapor in an integrated circuit fabrication process can severely
effect the yield and quality of the circuit. (Razaq, col. 1, ll. 39-42). We conclude
that one skilled in the art would be motivated to adapt a gas sensor to detect water
vapor.
For the reasons provided with respect to claims 8, 10, 11 and 79 above, we
again find that of one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to select the
appropriate gas sensor materials to detect a particular gas. We affirm the
57
Page: Previous 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013