Appeal No. 2002-1760
Serial No. 09/355,509
boats and thereby increase the production capacity of the
processing chamber (answer, pages 6-7). Zinger, however, uses
multiple one-reactor processing chambers rather than multiple
reactors within each processing chamber (figure 1). The examiner
has not explained why the Zinger reference itself would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the
desirability of using multiple reactors within a processing
chamber rather than using Zinger’s multiple one-reactor
processing chambers.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness of the appellants’
claimed invention.1
Rejection over Zinger in view of Ohsawa or Nishi
The examiner argues (answer, pages 5-6):
Ohsawa teaches a heat treatment apparatus 30
(Fig. 1) comprising a number (two) [of] heat treatment
units 3A, 3B which are arranged horizontally and which
load wafer boats 33 containing wafers W from a lower
level using a boat elevator 32. The heat treatment
unit includes heat treatment furnaces 31 (Abstract and
column 4, lines 3-27)[.]
Nishi also teaches a heat treating apparatus
(Figs. 1,2) comprising a plurality of vertical heat-
treating furnaces 30 arranged in parallel for heat
1 Since no prima facie case of obviousness has been
established, we need not address the evidence of commercial
success relied upon by the appellants. See In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Rinehart,
531 F.2d at 1052, 189 USPQ at 147.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007