Appeal No. 2002-0697
Application No. 09/625,857
the form of two diametrically opposed gas injectors or pipes 30
each having plural jet openings 31. Shimada also teaches,
however, that “[t]he injector 30 may be single or more than
three” (column 8, lines 66 and 67).
In proposing to combine Okase and Shimada to reject claim
21, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to
provide the apparatus of Okase with a plurality of gas supply
tubes . . . as taught by Shimada et al. in order to improve the
system efficiency” (answer, pages 3 and 4). The appellant
counters (see pages 4 through 10 in the brief) that given the
structural and functional differences between the Okase and
Shimada devices there is no teaching, suggestion or incentive to
combine the two as proposed by the examiner.
Notwithstanding their differences, the Okase and Shimada
devices constitute semiconductor thermal treatment apparatuses
wherein a process gas is fed into and exhausted from a processing
chamber. One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily
appreciated Shimada’s teaching that the gas may be fed into the
chamber via one, two or more than three gas introduction pipes or
tubes to be applicable to similar devices, such as that disclosed
by Okase, and that the use of plural tubes would improve the
efficiency of the device, as observed by the examiner, by
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007