Appeal No. 2005-1711
Application No. 10/217,370
peripheral openings 39 having a diameter that is greater than
the diameter of the peripheral openings 40, located in regions
C1 and C3.
Again, if one were to divide the diagram of Nogami’s Figure
4b in a likewise manner, such respective regions would have
peripheral openings having a larger diameter than the diameter
of peripheral openings of the other respective peripheral
regions. Hence, in the same manner, we agree with the
examiner’s rejection of claims 9-16.
With regard to claim 17, appellants’ position is set forth
on pages 17-18 of the brief. Appellants’ basically repeat
similar arguments that were presented with regard to the
rejection of claims 1-16.
Claim 17 recites first, second, and third sets of
peripheral openings extending through a peripheral area of the
plate, wherein the peripheral openings are variable in diameter
between the first, second, and third set of peripheral openings.
For the same discussed above, Figure 4b of Nogami suggests such
variable diameter.
Furthermore, Ballance also suggests that the choice of
diameter size and hole distribution are known to persons skilled
in the art so as to adjust and tailor the flow of process gas
over the surface of the substrate. Absent evidence of
critically, the examiner has set forth a prima facie case of
obvious.
In view of the above, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 1-19 as being obvious over Ballance in view
of Nogami.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007