Appeal No. 1997-4027
Application No. 08/300,111
susceptor extension.” The Examiner relies on Narita to describe a preheat ring that has
an extension in its upper surface that overlaps and mates with a susceptor that has an
extension. We agree with Appellants’ description of Narita appearing on pages 4 and 5 of
the Brief. Narita does not describe the same type of preheat ring as Anderson. The
preheat ring of Anderson, like the claimed invention, is used to heat the reactive gases
prior to deposition. The preheat ring (susceptor 7) of Narita is used to thermally heat the
susceptor 8 prior to deposition. The present record does not contain adequate motivation
for substituting the susceptor and thermal preheat susceptor of Narita for the susceptor
and gas preheat ring of Anderson. In the absence of sufficient factual evidence or
scientific rationale on the part of the Examiner to establish why and how a skilled artisan
would have arrived at the subject matter of claim 3 from the applied references, we find
that the Examiner has failed to meet the initial burden of establishing the prima facie
obviousness of the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner*s rejection of claim 3.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007