Appeal No. 2002-0177
Application No. 09/325,835
multiplicity of perforations, and the size, spacing and
arrangement of the perforations will vary with the specific use
of the fluid distribution head. Hence, as stated by the
examiner on page 5 of answer, the size and shape of delivery
holes are art-recognized variables.
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 12.
However, with respect to the rejection of claim 14, the
examiner’s rejection does not set forth how the combination of
references in this rejection meets the requirement of claim 14
regarding a first and second showerhead plate, as mentioned
supra. We refer to our comments set forth below in connection
with rejection involving claim 17. In this regard, we reverse
the rejection of claim 14.
IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of Claim 17
The examiner relies upon Rose, and states that Rose
discloses a gas dispersion disk 20 and showerhead electrode 28.
The examiner concludes that based on this disclosure, it would
have been obvious to utilize two showerheads. On page 7 of the
answer, the examiner also asserts that duplication of parts has
been held to be obvious.
Firstly, an apparatus having a first showerhead plate and a
second showerhead plate, as for example, depicted in appellant’s
Figure 14 or Figure 15, is not a duplication of parts as
asserted by the examiner.
Secondly, upon our review of Rose, particularly Figure 1,
in column 4 at lines 38-43, Rose indicates that the gas
dispersion disk 20 functions as a selective barrier and is thus
effective to counteract gradient pressures existing above a disk
and provides a uniform flow of vapors through the showerhead for
distribution of the entire surface of the slice 37. This is not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007