Appeal No. 2006-1871 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/245,442
periodic cleaning. See, e.g., column 7, lines 41-43 of Ameen.
As for the gas distribution plate heating element of
representative claim 29, Nguyen discloses that a heating means
should be employed at that location as pointed out by the
examiner in the answer (page 4).
The claim term “heating element” does not require any
particular type of heater. Thus, we do not find that the heating
element of representative claim 29 requires a patentably distinct
heater from that taught and suggested by Nguyen. In any event,
we agree with the examiner that Mandrekar teaches a heating
device for a gas distribution plate that is embraced by the claim
language. Moreover, we agree with the examiner’s assessment that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the
obviousness of employing the heating device of Mandrekar as the
heating means in Nguyen for reasons set forth at page 8 of the
answer.
Consequently, we are not persuaded by appellants’ arguments
in the briefs suggesting a lack of incentive for one of ordinary
skill in the art to employ a cleaning process in conjunction with
the CVD process of Nguyen based on the combined teachings of the
applied references.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007