Appeal No. 95-3451
Application No. 08/097,588
However, we cannot sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection
of claims 11, 18, 24, 32 and 33 as being unpatentable over
Hansen alone or further in view of Arai. As correctly
indicated by the appellant, the applied references contain no
teaching, suggestion or incentive concerning the here claimed
feature of a gas diffuser disposed outside the chamber. More
specifically, the examiner’s references do not support a
conclusion that such a disposition was even known in the prior
art much less that it would have been desirable to so dispose
the gas diffuser of Hansen.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007