Appeal 2007-2483
Application 09/899,183
which evinces confidence that those in the art would understand and be able
to use such systems without elaboration.37
Taken as a whole, the evidence on appeal shows an art keenly aware
of the need to keep the spray cool and to keep the cool delivery components
and the heated expansion components thermally separated. The art shows
considerable variety and sophistication in the approaches taken to
accomplish these goals. These include control systems to regulate the
temperature of precursor materials until they leave the nozzle tip and devices
to insulate the heated and cooled components from each other.
ANALYSIS
While the examiner has focused on the breadth of the claim to justify
the rejection, thus setting up a claim-construction dispute particularly over
the meaning of "nozzle", the cited references provide ample evidence in
support of obviousness even under a narrower construction of "nozzle".
Obviousness is not a multi-reference anticipation: there is no need for the
limitations to exist as claimed in the art simply awaiting combination. One
can look to the skill in the art to provide reasons to modify as well.
Even when a claim contains considerable structural detail, its subject
matter may still have been obvious to those skilled in the art.38 Even under
Mitsubishi's narrower construction of "nozzle", Li (understood in light of
Zhao) shows all of the limitations of claim 15 except the cooling block in
physical contact with the portion of the nozzle adjacent to the plate. Since
Li's nozzle touches the plate, any part of the nozzle (narrowly construed as
37 Zhao 5:1-12.
38 In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1889 (Fed. Cir.
1991) (affirming the rejection of a so-called "picture claim").
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013