Appeal 2007-2095
Application 10/378,493
withstanding the operating conditions within the reaction chamber of an
epitaxial reactor (Answer 11; see factual findings (2) and (3) listed above).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we affirm
the rejection of claims 1 and 12 under § 103(a) over Strauch in view of
Sillmon ‘855 and Löfgren. We also summarily affirm the rejection of claims
2 and 3 under § 103(a) over the above-noted references further in view of
Hayashi, since, as discussed above, Appellants do not dispute or contest this
rejection.
B. The Rejection over Frijlink, Sillmon ‘289, Hayashi, and Löfgren
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
(4) Frijlink discloses an apparatus for depositing epitaxial layers on a
substrate that includes a processing chamber, a carrier plate, a
cover plate, a gas-admission element, and a gas-discharge ring
with a plurality of gas outlet openings, where the ring preferably is
made from a plate of molybdenum (Mo) (Answer 6; see Frijlink,
Figs. 1 and 3; col. 1, l. 66-col. 2, l. 6; and col. 2, ll. 26-61);
(5) Sillmon ‘289 discloses a gas collector which is an improvement
over Frijlink, where it was essential to use a folded plate of Mo as
the gas collector, with Sillmon ‘289 teaching the advantages of
using graphite as a rigid body for forming the gas collector
(Answer 6; see Sillmon ‘289, col. 1, l. 57-col. 2, l. 23; col. 2, ll.
50-54 and 63-67; col. 5, ll. 4-5; col. 6, ll. 4-5; col. 7, ll. 18-19, 35-
36, 38-40, and 65-67; and col. 8, ll. 1-22);
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013