Appeal No. 2002-1760
Serial No. 09/355,509
treating of multiple sets of wafers simultaneously
(Abstract and column 3, lines 37-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to implement the multiple reactor mechanism as
taught by Ohsawa or Nishi in the processing chamber of
Zinger in order to simultaneously treat more than one
wafer in the processing chamber.
The examiner’s argument actually is the same as that in the
rejection over Zinger alone, i.e., that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use multiple
reactors in Zinger’s processing chambers to simultaneously treat
wafers in each reactor. The examiner merely relies upon Ohsawa
and Nishi as evidence that semiconductor processing apparatus
having multiple reactors were known in the art.
The apparatus of Ohsawa and Nishi differ substantially from
that of Zinger, and the examiner does not rely upon any teaching
in Ohsawa or Nishi for a suggestion to use the multiple reactors
of these references in Zinger’s processing chamber. Accordingly,
for this reason and the reasons given above regarding the
rejection over Zinger, we conclude that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness of the appellants’
claimed invention over the combined teachings of Zinger and
Ohsawa or Nishi.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007