Appeal No. 2002-1201
Application No. 09/026,575
being processed and the shadow frame" (page 3 of Request, third
paragraph). Also, appellants' request does not refute the
examiner's finding that Tateishi discloses "shadow frame 12
positionable with a gap between an underside of the shadow frame
and upper surface of the substrate" (page 5 of Answer, last
paragraph). Manifestly, our comment based upon the inaccurate
copy of Figure 7 supplied by appellants is not necessary to our
decision.
Appellants also state that "[t]he Board further errs in
supporting rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-15 by stating that
Applicant is relying on the argument that a shadow frame, i.e.,
any shadow frame, is not in contact with a substrate during
processing" (page 2 of Request, last paragraph). While we now
understand that our interpretation was not the intent of
appellants, our interpretation was reasonable based on the
context of the paragraph. In any event, as is evident from our
discussion above, our interpretation of appellants' argument was
not necessary to our decision.
As for separately argued claims 16 and 19, we adopt the
examiner's reasoning set forth at page 6 of the Answer.
Appellants' argument in the Brief that Deguchi discloses
discharging a charge from the susceptor and Tateishi discloses
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007