Appeal 2007-2483
Application 09/899,183
THE REJECTIONS
The examiner contends that the claims would have been obvious to a
person having ordinary skill in the art in view of these patents. The
examiner bases the rejection of claims 15 and 17 on the Li and Zhao
patents.18 The rejection of the other two claims also involves a third
reference, which is moot since these claims stand or fall with claim 15.
In analyzing obviousness, the scope and content of the prior art must
be determined, the differences between the prior art and the claims
ascertained, and the ordinary level of skill in the art resolved. Objective
evidence of the circumstances surrounding the origin of the claimed subject
matter (so-called secondary considerations) may also be relevant. Such
secondary considerations guard against the employment of impermissible
hindsight.19 Mitsubishi has not directed us to any evidence of secondary
considerations.20
Scope and content of the prior art
The Li patent
Li's disclosure relates to a CVD apparatus, and particularly a
precursor liquid vaporization device with improved rate and stoichiometry
18 Final Rejection 2.
19 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 36 (1966), cited with approval
in KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The
record on appeal does not contain objective evidence of secondary
considerations.
20 Br. 10.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013