Appeal No. 96-3512
Application 08/235,623
examiner states that Lau teaches “a cylindrical reactor with 3
orifices above one of which sits self-supported a rectangular
substrate” (answer, page 4). Apparently the examiner is
referring to substrate 20; however, this element is not “self-
supported” as asserted by the examiner, much less self-supported
either on or against the wall of the reaction chamber as required
by the claims on appeal. Instead substrate 20 is supported by
substrate holder 18 which in turn is supported by thermocouple 16
which in turn is supported by platform 14 (see Fig. 1). This
being the case, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-6,
9-15 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Lau.
We consider last the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of (1)
claims 1-7, 9-16 and 18-20 based on the combined disclosures of
Lau and Yamazaki and (2) claims 8 and 17 based on the combined
disclosures of Lau, Yamazaki and Deaton. Both of these
rejections are bottomed on the examiner’s view that it would have
been obvious to provide the substrate of Lau with one which was
made of SiO in view of the teachings of Yamazaki (see the
2
paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5 of the answer). However, such a
modification of Lau in view of the teachings of Yamazaki does
nothing to overcome the basic deficiency of Lau that we have
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007