Appeal No. 2002-1178
Application No. 09/354,459
heated gas teachings of Nozaki, the examiner tacitly admits (answer, pages 8 and 9) that the control
gas 8 in Mikoshiba is not a heated gas. Although Nozaki introduces a heated carrier gas into the
chamber 7 via supply port 23, Nozaki, like Mikoshiba, uses the heated gas to prevent the reaction
gas from coming into contact with the side walls of the chamber (translation, page 5). Even if the
reactant gases in Mikoshiba and Nozaki are maintained on the gaseous sides of their respective
sublimation curves, as argued by the examiner (answer, pages 9 and 10), neither Mikoshiba nor
Nozaki teaches or would have suggested to the skilled artisan maintaining “said reaction product in
the gaseous phase of said sublimation curve when contacting the peripheral inner wall.” Thus, the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 3, 6 through 8, 21 through 23 and 25 through 28 is
reversed.
In the alternative rejection of claims 1 through 3, 6 through 8, 21 through 23 and 25 through
28, Ohashi, like Mikoshiba and Nozaki, does not want the reactant gas to contact the inner wall of
the chamber (column 12, lines 65 through 67; column 15, lines 35 through 38). The examiner
acknowledges (answer, page 12) that Ohashi does not disclose the claimed heated gas. Thus, the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 3, 6 through 8, 21 through 23 and 25 through 28 is
reversed because the reactant gases in the references do not contact the “peripheral inner wall” of
either chamber.
The obviousness rejections of claims 4 and 24 are reversed because neither the admitted
prior art nor the teachings of Pierson cure the noted shortcomings in the teachings of Mikoshiba,
Nozaki and Ohashi.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007