Appeal No. 2005-1711
Application No. 10/217,370
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Ballance in view Nogami.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Srivastava in view of Nogami.
On page 8 of the brief, appellants group the claims as
follows: claims 1-8 together, claims 9-16 together, claims 17-19
together, and claim 20. Accordingly, we consider claims 1, 9,
17, and 20 in this appeal. See 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September 2004); formerly 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(2003). Also see Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016,
1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991).
We have carefully reviewed appellants’ brief and the answer
and the evidence of record. This review has led us to the
following determinations.
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-19 as being
obvious of Ballance in view of Nogami
We consider claims 1, 9, and 17 in this rejection.
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth
pages 2-6 of the final office action mailed January 15, 2004.
Appellants’ position for this rejection is set forth on pages
12-15 of the brief.
With regard to claim 1, appellants do not dispute the
findings made by the examiner with regard to the teachings of
Ballance. Brief, page 12. Appellants argue that Figure 4b of
Nogami shows that all of the peripheral openings have the same
diameter, and therefore Nogami fails to teach that the
peripheral openings in the gas distribution plate are “variable
in diameter” as recited in claim 1.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007