Appeal No. 2005-1711
Application No. 10/217,370
At the top of page 5 of the answer, the examiner responds
and states that the word “peripheral” encompasses an area of
significant thickness to encompass holes with sizes that change
in the angular direction, and that this feature is shown by
Nogami’s Figure 4b. We agree. That is, as depicted in
appellants’ Figure 5, and as described on pages 15-16 of
appellants’ specification, there are peripheral regions C1-C4.
If one were to divide the figure shown in Nogami’s Figure 4b
into such respective peripheral regions, the examiner is correct
that each of such regions would have peripheral openings that
are “variable in diameter.” Hence, we agree with the examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 in this regard.
Furthermore, as pointed by the examiner, Ballance teaches
that it may be desirable to vary the sizes of the holes and
their distribution, in ways that are known to person skilled in
the art, so as to adjust and/or tailor the flow of process gas
over the surface of the substrate. See col. 6, lines 58-61 of
Ballance. Absent evidence of critically, we agree with the
examiner that the subject matter of claim 1 is prima facie
obvious.
With regard to claim 9, appellants’ position is set forth
on pages 16-17 of the brief. Appellants argue that, for the
same reasons regarding the rejection of claims 1-8, Ballance in
view of Nogami fails to suggest or give any direction as to
which of many possible size variations and distributions of
holes in a gas distribution plate are critical to achieve the
desired affect of optimizing flow of gas over a substrate.
Claim 9 differs from claim 1 by reciting that the
peripheral regions C1-C4 having peripheral openings that differ
in size relative to respective peripheral regions. That is,
regions C2 and C4, shown in appellants’ Figure 5, have
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007