Appeal No. 2005-0536
Application No. 09/940,788
Stated simply, Figure 8B of Cady results in a total amount of
inert gas supplied to the entirety of the peripheral portion
greater than the amount of gas supplied to the smaller center
portion.
Appellants rely upon a Declaration under 37 CFR § 1.132 by
Hiroki Edo as evidence that "Cady's figures cannot be interpreted
as showing that more gas is supplied toward the peripheral
portion of the wafer surface than at the center, and that Cady's
apparatus cannot inherently meet the limitations of claim 1"
(page 8 of principal brief, last paragraph). However, as noted
by the examiner, the declarant's conclusion that the apparatus of
Cady's Figure 8B "does not appear to be able to obtain the gas
flow limitations of present claim 1" is not supported by factual
objective evidence (page 2 of Declaration, fourth paragraph,
emphasis added). Lacking in the Declaration is any evidence that
the declarant actually tested the apparatus of Cady corresponding
to Figure 8B. Furthermore, the declarant's analysis is directed
to the expected gas flow on the wafer surface resulting from the
Cady apparatus. However, the claimed subject matter on appeal
does not define any particular gas flow on the surface of the
wafer but, rather, only requires that a greater amount of inert
gas is supplied to the peripheral portion of the wafer than to
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007