Appeal No. 2002-0697
Application No. 09/625,857
providing a more uniform processing atmosphere. This
appreciation would have provided ample suggestion or motivation
to modify the Okase device by including a plurality of gas supply
tubes arranged concentrically with respect to the chamber for
introducing a gas into the chamber as recited in claim 21.
Thus, the combined teachings of Okase and Shimada justify
the examiner’s conclusion that the differences between the
subject matter recited in claim 21 and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art. We shall therefore sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of claim 21, and claims 22 through 32 which
stand or fall therewith, as being unpatentable over Okase in view
of Shimada.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 21 through 32
is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007