Appeal No. 95-3451
Application No. 08/097,588
When this claim is so interpreted, the above noted limitation
is satisfied by virtue of the fact that patentee’s diffusing
means 262 has a smaller circumferential radius than does the
outer wall of support ring or “tube” 264.
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of independent claim 9 and of nonargued
dependent claims 10, 15, 30 and 31 as being unpatentable over
Hansen.
We will also sustain the § 103 rejection based on Hansen
of claims 13, 14 and 19 through 23. This is because we are
unpersuaded by the appellant’s argument that Hansen contains
no teaching or suggestion of the features in claims 13, 14 and
19 which involve changing (e.g., by raising) the pressure
within the chamber. Although the chamber pressure is
maintained at a constant level during portions of patentee’s
method, this pressure is unquestionably decreased and
increased at other portions (e.g., during the anneal step) of
the method; see Table I at columns 9 and 10 as well as lines
37 through 67 in column 13 and lines 16 through 21 in column
14.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007