Appeal No. 2000-0034
Application 08/473,634
every inch of the chamber (answer page 5).
The examiner’s argument that Harada’s gas flow does not
uniformly flood the reaction chamber is unsupported by
evidence or technical reasoning. Regardless, the appellants’
claim 33 does not require that the gas does not uniformly
flood the chamber but, rather, requires that the flow into the
reaction chamber is restricted into a portion of the chamber.
Because the examiner has not provided evidence or technical
reasoning which shows that Harada explicitly or inherently
discloses this limitation of the appellants’ claim 33, the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation of the method recited in that claim.
Rejection of claim 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Harada
The appellants’ claim 18 requires “introducing a flow of
a chemical compound into a confined portion of the reaction
chamber to impinge the member”.
The examiner argues that the confined portion limitation
of claim 18 is met by Harada’s entire reactor because the
confined portion could be essentially the entire reactor, and
further argues that it would have been obvious to one of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007