Ex parte CORD et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 1998

08204728 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 1998)

Application for patent filed March 1, 1994.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for
publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte BERNHARD CORD, KARL-HEINZ SCHULLER,
and JAROSLAV ZEJDA
_____________
Appeal No. 95-4850
Application 08/204,7281
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before JERRY SMITH, LEE and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of Claims 1-8 and 14-16. Claims 9-11 and 13 are
Appeal No. 95-4850
Application 08/204,728
2
directed to allowable subject matter. Claim 12 was canceled.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. Apparatus for heating a substrate in a vacuum chamber, said apparatus comprising
a vacuum chamber having wall means with glass plate means therein,
substrate holding means inside the vacuum chamber,
lamp means outside said vacuum chamber, said lamp means emitting radiation in a first
wavelength range which passes through said glass plate means toward said substrate holding means,
and

heating disk means between said glass plate means and said substrate holding means, said
heating disk means having a high absorption of radiation in said first wavelength range and a high
emission of radiation in a second wavelength range above said first wavelength range.
The examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art:
Vu et al. (Vu) 4,581,520 Apr. 8, 1986
Stultz 5,047,611 Sept. 10, 1991
Goto (JP60-236216) 60-236216 Nov. 25, 1985
(Japan Patent)
Nakamu et al. (JP5-10677) 5-10677 Jan. 19, 1993
(Japan Patent)
Ono (JP62-94925) 62-94925 May 1, 1987
(Japan Patent)
OPINION
Appeal No. 95-4850
Application 08/204,728
3
Claims 1-3 and 14-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Stultz in
view of JP60-236216 and further in view of JP5-10677. Claims 4-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Stultz in view of JP60-236216 and further in view of JP5-10677 and even
further in view of Vu. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Stultz in
view of JP60-236216 and further in view of JP5-10677 and even further in view of JP62-94925.
The examiner says that it would have been obvious to modify Stultz in view of JP60-236216
and JP5-10677 by adding a heating disk to Stultz. Appellants argue that Stultz teaches away from an
intermediate heating disk because it would provide undesirable outside-in heating.
We agree with appellants. The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner
suggested by the examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-
84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In the present case, Stultz clearly teaches that no heating disk should be
placed between the light and the substrate because that would heat the film from the outside in, which is
just the problem Stultz is trying to avoid. Therefore, the rejections will not be sustained.
Appeal No. 95-4850
Application 08/204,728
4
CONCLUSION
The rejections are not sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JAMESON LEE ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS
) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-4850
Application 08/204,728
5
FELFE & LYNCH
805 THIRD AVE.
NEW YORK, NY 10022