Appeal No. 2002-1642
Application 09/300,563
in claim 1. Moreover, the appellants have not cogently
explained, nor is it apparent, (1) why such introduction of the
processing gases into Fukuda’s chamber would not inherently
produce an “asymmetric flow” in the sense disclosed in the
appellants’ specification and broadly recited in claim 1, (2) why
the processing gases are not introduced into the chamber via
nozzles “proximate” a pump port (Fukuda’s gas evacuation port 9)
to the extent disclosed in the appellants’ specification and
broadly recited in claim 3, (3) why the asymmetric flow would not
inherently “counteract” a non-uniform distribution of reactive
species and by products in the chamber as disclosed in the
appellants’ specification2 and broadly recited in claim 2, or (4)
why Fukuda’a nozzles (the ends of conduits 6, 7 and 8) are not
“located mostly proximate” a pump port (Fukuda’s gas evacuation
port 9) as broadly recited in claim 10.
Hence, on its face Fukuda would have suggested, if it does
not actually teach, a processing method and apparatus responsive
to the argued limitations in claims 1 through 3 and 10. We shall
2 The appellants’ specification (see, for example, pages 2,
5 and 6) explains that the asymmetric flow counteracts non-
uniform distribution of reactive species and by products by
introduction into the chamber primarily through nozzles located
near or proximate the pump port.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007