Appeal 2007-2095
Application 10/378,493
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations. See Graham v.
John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467
(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 established a
prima facie case of obviousness. As shown by factual finding (1) listed
above, we determine that Strauch discloses all limitations of the claimed
device as recited in claim 1 on appeal with the exception of the material used
to construct the cover plate and gas-discharge ring (i.e., graphite; see the
Answer 4). As shown by factual findings (2) and (3) listed above, we
determine that the Examiner has clearly shown that it was well known to one
of ordinary skill in the art of epitaxial growth deposition process chambers
to use graphite as a suitable material to form the top wall (cover plate) and
gas-discharge ring (Answer 10-11). Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner’s explicit analysis supporting obviousness, namely that it would
have been well within the ordinary skill in this art to use graphite as the
construction material for the cover plate and gas-discharge ring of Strauch,
since graphite was known in the art as a suitable material capable of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013