Appeal No. 2005-1089
Application No. 09/947,454
Ramm describes a vapor deposition installation including: a
vacuum chamber 19 with an evacuation port 20 and a bottom 29; a
low-voltage arc 52; six electrically conducting supports 35
disposed rotatably about the chamber axis on a rotary table 37
and connected in an electrically conducting manner to holders
36; crucible 30; and a target 51 positioned within an annulus
50. (Column 2, line 52 to column 3, line 35; Figures 3 and 4.)
Even assuming that Ramm’s six electrically conducting
supports 35 are separable from rotary table 37, there is no
teaching in the reference as to any opening that would permit
supports 35 to be removed from the vacuum chamber 19, let alone
a laterally-extending closeable opening through which the
support may be removed by raising the support off of an upper
end of a receiving device as recited in appealed claim 1. While
the examiner appears to identify the area in proximity to Ramm’s
element 49 as a possible laterally-extending closeable opening
(answer at 9), element 49 is described as one of six devices
with a heat exchanger for cooling. (Column 3, lines 26-29.)
Because the examiner has not adequately accounted for this
difference, we cannot affirm.
The remaining prior art references, namely Straemke, Song,
Blalock, and Ramalingam, have been cited for purposes other than
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007