Ex Parte Shimomura et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2005

10234097 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2005)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and
is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte MANABU SHIMOMURA and HIROTO ITOI
_____________
Appeal No. 2005-0805
Application No. 10/234,097
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KIMLIN, PAK and TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-5.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A mass spectrometer for analyzing a sample gas,
comprising:
means for producing an ion of the sample gas
through collision of the gas with an electron beam,
said producing means having an electrode made of
stainless steel baked at a temperature in a range
of 200oC to 700oC in an air atmosphere, said electrode
made of stainless steel being reconditioned by baking
at a temperature in a range of 200oC to 700oC, and
Appeal No. 2005-0805
Application No. 10/234,097
2
means for processing the sample ion, said
processing means guiding the sample ion into a magnetic
field or an electric field for separating the ion
according to a mass number to obtain a mass spectrum
for analysis.
In addition to the admitted prior art, the examiner relies
upon the following references as evidence of obviousness:
Shiokawa 5,916,388 Jun. 29, 1999
“Stainless Steels”, Marks’ Standard Handbook for
Mechanical Engineers 10th Edition, pgs. 6-32 - 6-37
(1996). Section by James D. Redmond. (Redmond)
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a mass
spectrometer for analyzing a sample gas comprising a stainless
steel electrode that is baked at a temperature in the range of
200oC to 700oC and reconditioned by baking at a temperature in
the same range. The initial baking of the stainless steel
oxidizes the surface to produce chromium dioxide and chromium
oxide which reduces pinholes, while the reconditioning baking
removes components of the sample gas which contaminate the
surface.
Appealed claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of
Redmond and Shiokawa.
Appeal No. 2005-0805
Application No. 10/234,097
3
Appellants submit at page 4 of the brief that “[c]laims 1-5
fall together and claim 1 represents the invention.”
Accordingly, all the claims stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner’s rejections for the reasons set forth in
the answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants admit that it was known in the art to use
stainless steel electrodes and mass spectrometers of the type
claimed. In addition, appellants do not contest the examiner’s
factual determination with respect to the disclosures of Redmond
and Shiokawa. As explained by the examiner, Redmond evidences
that it was well known in the art to bake stainless steel in a
temperature range of 200oC - 700oC in an air atmosphere in order
to form a protective oxide layer. Shiokawa teaches that
stainless steel can be reconditioned by baking to remove gases
which are absorbed on the surface.
Appeal No. 2005-0805
Application No. 10/234,097
4
Consequently, based on the state of the art, we are convinced
that the examiner has properly concluded that it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a baked
stainless steel electrode in a mass spectrometer and to
recondition the stainless steel electrode by baking in order to
remove contaminating gaseous components thereon.
Appellants maintain that “Redmond does not disclose or
suggest that stainless steel can be used as the electrode and the
trap electrode for the ion source of the mass spectrometer” (page
5 of brief, second paragraph). However, as noted by the
examiner, the use of a stainless electrode in a mass spectrometer
is acknowledged in the admitted prior art, and appellants have
advanced no rationale why one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have applied the teachings of Redmond to the stainless steel
electrode of a mass spectrometer. While appellants state that
Redmond “does not specifically disclose that the electrode made
of stainless steel is baked at a temperature in range of 200oC to
700oC in an air atmosphere”, the baking temperatures disclosed by
Redmond fall within the claimed range, e.g., 370oC. Also, as
explained by the examiner, it would have been obvious for one of
Appeal No. 2005-0805
Application No. 10/234,097
5
ordinary skill in the art to use an air atmosphere since oxygen
is necessary to form the protective oxide layer.
Appellants also maintain that the electrode of the present
invention is baked at a temperature in the recited range in an
air atmosphere, where the stainless steel of Shiokawa is baked at
a temperature from 100oC to 300oC under vacuum conditions.
However, the examiner correctly points out that Shiokawa is
relied upon for the reconditioned stainless steel and claim 1
does not recite any atmosphere for the reconditioning baking
step. Also, the 300oC baking of Shiokawa falls within the
claimed range for reconditioning.
As a final point, we note that appellants base no arguments
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, and the reasons
well-stated by the examiner, the examiner's decision rejecting
the appealed claims is affirmed.
Appeal No. 2005-0805
Application No. 10/234,097
6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHUNG K. PAK ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
CATHERINE TIMM )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EAK/vsh
Appeal No. 2005-0805
Application No. 10/234,097
7
HAUPTMAN, KANESAKA, BERNER
PATENT AGENTS
1700 DIAGONAL RD
SUITE 300
ALEXANDRIA VA 22314-2848