Appeal No. 2001-1068
Application 09/063,196
and 3) that the applied references neither teach nor would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the specifically
claimed method steps of cleaning a chamber, depositing a film of
coating material on the surfaces in the chamber, and thereafter
introducing a gas into the chamber to stabilize the deposited
coating material. Eichman is concerned with preventing the
formation of a film of coating material in the reactor chamber
(column 1, lines 5 through 7; column 2, lines 59 through 63), and
not with the deliberate deposit of such a material. Thus, the
obviousness rejection of claims 15 through 17 and 20 through 23
is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 18, 19 and 31 is
reversed because the teachings of Shufflebotham and Miyamoto fail
to cure the noted shortcoming in the teachings of Eichman, Foster
and Albrecht.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
25 and 27 through 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed as to
claims 1 through 25, 27, 28, 30 and 31, and is affirmed as to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007