Appeal 2007-2134
Application 10/311,880
Consequently, the issues before us are: (1) Have Appellants identified
reversible error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 3-11 by
asserting that Kuibira does not describe a heater that is capable of heating an
organic metal gas to a temperature higher than a thermal decomposition
temperature thereof; and/or (2) Have Appellants identified reversible error in
the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 4 over Kuibira by asserting
that Kuibira does not describe first and second ejection holes, as claimed?
We answer these questions in the negative and we affirm the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claims 3-11 over Kuibira.
At the outset, we note that Appellants do not dispute that the
described subject matter found in Kuibira is prior art with regard to rejected
claims 3-11. Also, Appellants do not disagree with the Examiner’s
determination that Kuibira discloses a thin film forming apparatus including
a gas supply means comprising holes and a heater. Rather, Appellants argue
that the heater described by Kuibira does not correspond to Appellants’
claimed heater because Kuibira does not disclose controlling the temperature
of the heater such that it would be capable of heating an organic metal gas to
a decomposition temperature thereof (Br. 3). However, representative claim
3 and separately argued claim 4 do not require a heater controller, much less
a heater controller that is constructed to operate the heater in a particular
manner. Rather, apparatus claims 3 and 4 require a heater that has the
functional capability of heating an organic metal gas to a temperature above
a decomposition temperature thereof. The particular organic metal gas and
decomposition temperature thereof are not specified in either representative
claim 3 or separately argued claim 4. Hence, the claims are inclusive of the
provision of a heater that is capable of heating a gas to a temperature within
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013