Appeal No. 1997-4027
Application No. 08/300,111
1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190
USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 1 states “susceptor has an extension between the support surface and the
backside thereof to form a reactant gas barrier preventing reaction gases from reaching
the backside surface of said susceptor.” The specification refers to the surface which
supports the substrate as a pedestal or a susceptor. (Specification, page 3, lines 2-3 and
page 5, lines 6-7). The specification, page 6, lines 21-23, describes the extension 142
as either built into the sidewall of the susceptor 136 or mounted on the outside thereof.
Thus, the extension refers to the portion of the susceptor or pedestal which is not
covered by the substrate. (See Figure 2). The extension can also be described as the
portion of the susceptor 136 not covered by the substrate 135 that extends outward
toward the surrounding heat ring 140. The description of the extension in claim 1 is not
limited to the shape of 142 described in Figure 3.
It is well established that the examiner has the initial burden under § 103 to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72,
223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). To that end, the examiner must show that
some objective teaching or suggestion in the applied prior art, or knowledge generally
available in the art would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007