Ex Parte Yim et al - Page 6




                Appeal No. 2005-2013                                                                              Page 6                   
                Application No. 10/140,324                                                                                                 

                        Contrary to the assertion by the Examiner, the combination of Hills et al. and                                     
                Murakami et al. do not teach, show, or suggest a restrictive section, as recited in claims                                 
                1, 7 and 17.  As stated by Appellants, Brief pages 5-6:                                                                    
                        the holes 21a and 21b in Murakami et al are totally separated from the                                             
                        nozzle 29, not part of the nozzle 29 having a straight passage 28 and a                                            
                        diffuser 27. The gas inlet passages 21a and 21b of Murakami et al. feed                                            
                        into a gas mixing chamber 26, from which the mixed gases feed into a                                               
                        straight passage 28 and then through a diffuser 27 into the reaction                                               
                        chamber 3. The diffusion of the gases is not restrained in any way. There                                          
                        is no face plate or focus ring after the gas mixing chamber in the gas                                             
                        injector lid 5; instead the gas is freely flow into contact with the walls of the                                  
                        reaction chamber 3. Thus, the combination of Hills et al. and Murakami et                                          
                        al. fails to suggest a face plate having a plurality of holes formed                                               
                        therethrough, each hole including a restrictive section, a center passage                                          
                        section, and an opening section.                                                                                   
                        We further agree with Appellants that “there is no annular body in Murakami et al.                                 
                and Murakami et al. does not teach, show, or suggest a mounting flange coupled to a                                        
                second end of an annular body. Thus, there is no suggestion or motivation in the                                           
                references to include an annular body having a first end coupled to a first side of the                                    
                face plate and a mounting flange coupled to a second end of the annular body,” as                                          
                required by the independent claims.  (Brief, p. 6).  As such, we do not agree with the                                     
                Examiner's obviousness position as outlined in the Final Rejection.  The speculative                                       
                position asserted by the Examiner is merely an unsupported opinion of the Examiner                                         
                and such is not enough to establish the obviousness of the claimed subject matter                                          
                within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.  Rather, as our reviewing court has made clear,                                     
                the Examiner must identify a particularized suggestion, reason or motivation to combine                                    








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007