Appeal No. 2002-0177
Application No. 09/325,835
I. 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-10 and 13
As pointed out by the examiner on pages 4-5 of the answer,
Figure 2 of appellants’ specification (admitted prior art) shows
a showerhead comprising a delivery hole 6, a showerhead heater
3, and a baffle 8.
We further note that Figure 2 (admitted prior art)
indicates that the delivery hole 6 has, on one side, a large
diameter bore, and, on the other side, a smaller diameter bore.
Hence, contrary to appellant’s assertions made throughout the
brief, the admitted prior art teaches a plurality of delivery
apertures placed in specified geometric pattern about the
showerhead plate, where each delivery aperture is comprised of a
large diameter bore and a smaller diameter bore.
We note that the examiner relies on Vukelic regarding the
thickness of the showerhead plate. However, the thickness is
not a requirement of claim 1 and we need only consider claim 1
because, as admitted by appellant, this grouping of claims under
this rejection stand or fall together. 37 CFR § 1.192 (c)(7)(8)
(2000). Because Vukelic is relied upon for the thickness of the
showerhead, we do not discuss this reference in sections II-IV
of the decision.
In view of the above, we affirm this rejection.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 11
On page 9 of the brief, appellant argues that Murakami does
not have an embedded heater, but rather, uses an external heater
63 as shown in Figure 9.
Upon our review of Murakami in this regard, we find that,
as shown in Figure 9, the heat medium is supplied through heat
medium pipe 62. The heat medium pipe is combined with a heater
63 for heating the heat medium. An extractor 64, such as a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007