Appeal 2007-2095
Application 10/378,493
Appellants contend that Frijlink “teaches away” from the claimed
invention by requiring a foldable, elastic plate of molybdenum (Mo) as the
gas-discharge ring (Br. 11).3
The Examiner contends that Strauch discloses the basic structure as
claimed, while the secondary references Sillmon ‘855 and Löfgren teach the
well known use of graphite as a material to form the cover plate and gas-
discharge ring (Answer 10-11).
The Examiner contends that Strauch does not “teach away” from the
claimed invention since Appellants’ argument is directed to the quartz frit
discharge ring of the gas-admission element, not the gas-discharge ring for
exhausting the process chamber (Answer 11-12).
The Examiner contends that Frijlink does not “teach away” from the
claimed invention since Sillmon ‘289 specifically teaches an improvement
over the Mo gas-discharge ring of Frijlink (Answer 15-16).
The Examiner contends that graphite is well known in the art and
commonly used as a material for construction of components in deposition
process chambers, as taught by Sillmon ‘289 and Löfgren (Answer 13-14).
Accordingly, the issues presented on the record in this appeal are as
follows: (1) was it well known and common in this art to use graphite as a
construction material for components in deposition process chambers?; and
(2) do Strauch and/or Frijlink “teach away” from the claimed subject matter?
3 We note that Appellants’ “Reply Brief” dated Dec. 28, 2006, has not been
considered or entered by the Examiner (see the Letter dated Mar. 16, 2007).
From the record in this application, it appears that Appellants have not filed
a petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 requesting entry of this Reply Brief.
Accordingly, we do not consider this Reply Brief as part of the record in this
appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013