Appeal No. 2006-1871 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/245,442
select claim 29 as representative of the so rejected claims and
shall primarily focus on that representative claim in our
comments below with respect to those common arguments.1
Appellants (brief, page 11) assert that:
1. “Nguyen provides no description of cleaning a chamber”;
2. “Ameen provides no discussion of utilizing a heating element
or high temperature heat exchanger fluid”; and
3. “Mandrekar does not mention cleaning a deposition chamber.”
Thus, appellants maintain that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not find in the applied references a suggestion of the
desirability of combining elements from each other to arrive at
the subject matter of representative claim 29.
We disagree with appellants’ limited characterization of the
combined teachings of the applied references as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and as they relate
1 We shall briefly comment separately on the rejection of independent claim 13 to
the extent that appellants’ comments at page 11 of the brief may be considered to
represent separate arguments for the patentability of that rejected claim.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007