Appeal No. 2002-0177
Application No. 09/325,835
a teaching of a first showerhead plate and a second showerhead
plate as required by claim 14, upon which claim 17 depends. In
this context, we note that appellants point out on page 11 of
the brief that Rose is directed to a chemical vapor transport
reactor gas dispersion disk 20 for counteracting vapor pressure
gradients to provide a uniform deposition of material films.
Hence appellant also recognizes that element 20 in Figure 1 of
Rose is a dispersion disk and not a second showerhead plate.
Furthermore, claim 17 requires that the delivery holes of
the second showerhead plate are tilted outward for delivering
the precursor uniformly at a greater area. The examiner has not
explained how Rose meets this aspect of appellant’s claim 17.
Therefore, we reverse this rejection.
V. Conclusion
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-10 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over appellant’s admitted prior art in view of
Vukelic.
We reverse the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over appellant’s admitted prior art in of Vukelic and in further
view of Murakami.
We affirm the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over appellant’s admitter prior art in view of Vukelic and
further view of Ogi. However, we reverse the rejection of claim
14 in this regard.
We reverse the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over appellant’s admitted prior art in view of Vukelic and Ogi
and further view of Rose.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007