Appeal No. 95-2347 Page 7
Application No. 07/928,642
higher temperature adjacent the outer surfaces of the cooled
gas manifold/electrode (12) than the temperatures of inner
surfaces further removed from the plasma etching.
Based on the present record, we are in agreement with the
examiner's conclusion that the circulating means called for by
the claims do not structurally distinguish from the gas
manifold/electrode cooling structure of Chen. We note that
the claimed reactor has not been distinguished from the prior
art based on claimed structural differences. In this regard,
appellants argue possible distinctions in what the claimed
device may do in performing a particular temperature
maintenance operation (brief, page 10) rather than pointing
out any specific patentable differences in the claimed
structure itself. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb,
Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.
1990) and In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848, 120 USPQ 528, 531
(CCPA 1959).
Accordingly, we agree with the examiner that the reactor
structure defined by appealed claims 5 and 6 would have been
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or would have been rendered
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007