Appeal No. 2002-1555 Page 4
Application No. 09/511,572
column 4, lines 48-59 of Anthony. The examiner acknowledges that
Anthony does not disclose gas dispersion elements, as here
claimed. See the first full paragraph at page 5 of the answer.
Accordingly, the examiner turns to Ni or Fujii.
According to the examiner (answer, page 5),
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
incorporate the gas dispersion unit shown in Ni or
Fujii et al. in the primary reference of Anthony et al.
because these gas distribution structures provide for
excellent controllability of the processes being
conducted.
We do not agree with the examiner’s obviousness position.
As explained by appellant at pages 19 and 20 of the second
substitute brief, the examiner has not established why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine either
of the disparate disclosures of Ni or Fujii with Anthony in a
manner so as to arrive at the claimed subject matter. Ni
discloses a method and system for chemically treating substrates
with nebulized chemicals that is useful for semiconductor wafer
and flat panel display wet processing. Fujii is concerned with
apparatus for growing a compound semiconductor layer on a
substrate with a high level of uniformity.
Neither Ni nor Fujii employs a filament array and two
substrates as does Anthony. The examiner has not fairly
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007