Appeal No. 2005-0786
Application No. 09/832,168
to appellants’ specification, the claimed apparatus can be used
in the production of integrated circuits to provide controlled
delivery of vapor to a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) chamber.
Claim 1, which is one of three independent claims, is
illustrative of the claimed invention:
1. An apparatus for delivering processing gas from a
vaporizer to a processing system, comprising:
a valve connected between the vaporizer and the
processing system, the valve having a valve input connected
to a vaporizer output and a first valve output connected to
a processing system input and a second valve output
connected to a bypass line; and
a controller for switching the valve between the first
valve output and the second valve output.
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are:
Gauthier 6,007,330 Dec. 28, 1999
King 4,263,091 Apr. 21, 1981
Claims 1-11 and 17-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious from the combined teachings of Gauthier and
King.
Based on the record before us, we agree with appellants that
the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection at issue
essentially for the reasons set forth in appellants’ brief and
reply brief.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007