Appeal 2007-0496
Application 10/273,147
suggestion Ito’s plate 11 satisfies the limitation of a ring heater directly on a
transparent plate as required by claim 11. Appellants contend Ito provides
no motivation to heat Anderson’s upper dome 14 so that the dome 14 is
heated as specified in claim 11. Br., e.g., 11-13; Reply Br. 4-6.
The difficulty we have with the Examiner’s position is the structure of
Anderson’s CVD apparatus that would result from the replacement of one or
more lamps 34 with Ito’s plate 11 is unclear, particularly with respect to the
position therein of non-transparent plate 11. We determined that Anderson’s
lamps 34 did not constitute a heater on dome 14 which satisfied the
requirements of a heater directly on the transparent plate with respect to
claim 1, which language is also specified in claim 11. See above pp. 10 and
11. We determine here that one of ordinary skill in the art would not replace
any of Anderson’s lamps 34, transparent dome 14 with non-transparent plate
11 or susceptor 20 with non-transparent plate 11 as any of these
modifications would render Anderson’s apparatus unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose of heating both sides of susceptor 20 and thus, the
substrate thereon by the transmission of light from lamps 34 through upper
and lower domes 14, 16. See, e.g., In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221
USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). None of the possible structures
resulting from the Examiner’s proposed modifications result in the claimed
structural limitations of a transparent plate in a chamber allowing for the
transmission therethrough of VUV light, and the transparent plate having
directly thereon a ring heater that can heat different portion of the plate to
achieve different temperature as claimed, as Appellants point out. See
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013