Appeal No. 2003-1489
Application No. 09/256,486
lateral expanse of a first region of the chamber, we agree with
the examiner's reasoning set forth at pages 14 and 15 of the
Answer. Although appellant submits that "[i]nherency does not
obviate the Examiner's burden of providing a basis in fact and/or
technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that
the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the
teachings of the applied prior art,"11 appellant has failed to
address just such reasoning provided by the examiner. Nor has
appellant provided any reasoning or evidence which demonstrates
that the chambers of Gavin do not meet the claimed relationship
between through-plane thickness and lateral expanse.
As a final point, we note that appellant bases no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, the examiner's decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
11 Sentence bridging pages 23 and 24 of principal brief.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007