Appeal 2007-2134
Application 10/311,880
Figures 1-3, heater (40) as shown in Figure 4, and heater (13a), as shown in
Figures 5 and 6 of Fukuda. As for the functional capacity of the claimed
heater; that is the capability to heat to an organic metal gas decomposition
temperature, we agree with the Examiner that it is reasonable to conclude
that the electrical heaters of Fukuda are capable of heating the exit end of the
gas supply tubes they surround to a temperature that is above the
decomposition point of at least some organic metal gases. In this regard, we
note that Table 1 of Fukuda discloses heating the pipe and opening up to
220°C and 230°C, respectively. Given that disclosure of Fukuda, we do not
consider Appellants’ unsubstantiated contention that the heaters described
by Fukuda would not be capable of heating an organic metal gas to a
decomposition temperature persuasive of any reversible error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection.
As for Appellants’ additional argument with respect to the first and
second ejection holes of rejected claim 4, those arguments are not persuasive
for substantially the same reasons as we set forth with respect to the
arguments as made against the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 4
over Kuibira, as discussed above. In this regard, Fukuda discloses the use of
multiple ejection holes (12, Figs. 1-3 and 11a’ and 11b’, Fig. 5) for the gas
supply system thereof, which multiple ejection holes are read upon by the
first and second ejection holes of claim 4.
It follows that we shall affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claims 3-5, 7 and 11 over Fukuda.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013