Appeal No. 2002-1178
Application No. 09/354,459
Claims 4 and 24 stand rejected under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as indefinite
because hydrogen chloride is claimed as a reactant gas that is introduced into the chamber as
opposed to a by-product gas produced from the reaction of the reactant gases.
Claims 1 through 3, 6 through 8, 21 through 23 and 25 through 28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mikoshiba in view of Nozaki.
Claims 1 through 3, 6 through 8, 21 through 23 and 25 through 28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ohashi in view of Nozaki.
Claims 4 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Mikoshiba in view of Nozaki, appellants’ admitted prior art and Pierson, or Ohashi in view of
Nozaki, appellants’ admitted prior art and Pierson.
Reference is made to the second supplemental brief and reply brief (paper numbers 15 and
17) and the answer (paper number 16) for the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will sustain the
indefiniteness rejection of claims 4 and 24, and reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1
through 4, 6 through 8 and 21 through 28.
Turning first as we must to the indefiniteness rejection, appellants argue (reply brief, pages 2
and 3) that:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007