Appeal 2007-1269
Application 10/636,468
problems and solutions. (Br. 11-12; see also Reply Br. 3-5.) KSR forecloses
Appellants' arguments that a specific teaching is required and that the
references must address the same problem for a finding of obviousness.
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Appellants also argue that Pasadyn and Liu would be incompatible if
combined and that the Examiner used impermissible hindsight. (Br. 11-12;
see also Reply Br. 3, 5.) We do not agree. As previously discussed, the
obviousness of claim 1 may be demonstrated by Pasadyn alone. In addition,
the Examiner correctly found that Liu does not require more than one
measurement to be made and that using the rate calculation teaching of Liu
in the process of Pasadyn was within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
(Answer 8.) Appellants have presented no evidence that using the rate
calculation taught by Liu in the process of Pasadyn would be uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.
We have considered Appellants' remaining arguments and find them
unpersuasive. Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 3-5, 7-8, 10-11, and 14 were not argued separately, and thus
fall with claim 1.
Appellants separately argue the patentability of claims 2, 6,4 and 9.
With respect to claim 2, Appellants argue that neither Pasadyn nor Liu teach
or suggest the recited limitations of computing a process rate trend,
comparing the process rate trend to a limit level, and signaling detection of a
4 As mentioned supra, although the Briefs and the Answer purport to argue
claim 5, we will treat the arguments as being directed to claim 6 and will
consider the references to claim 5 to be typographical errors.
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013