Appeal No. 2002-0974
Application 09/332,745
Additionally, appellants disclose and claim 1 requires that the
cooling effected while the temperature is above 1000°C is
obtained while the susceptor is withdrawn from the wafer. This
has the effect of increasing the cooling rate. When the susceptor
is removed the wafer is supported by pins thereby limiting the
contact of the wafer with other hot surfaces.
Appellants have chosen to argue the patentability of their
claims over the cited references based on patentability of claim
1 as representative of claims 1 through 8 (see page 6 of the
brief); claim 9 as representative of claims 9 through 27 (see
page 12 of the brief); claim 28 as representative of claims 28
through 33 and 35 through 38 (see page 15 of the brief); and,
claim 34 as standing or falling on its own (see page 15 of the
brief). After a careful consideration of the entire record before
us, we conclude that the examiner has made out a prima facie case
of obviousness which has not been rebutted. Accordingly, for the
reasons which follow, we shall affirm the examiner's rejection.
THE REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1 THROUGH 8
The examiner has rejected claims 1 through 8 over the
combined disclosures of Asayama et al., Inoue et al and Nakagawa
et al. We agree with the examiner that Asayama et al. is evidence
that at the time appellants made their invention it would have
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007