Appeal No. 2006-1871 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/245,442
We note that claim 13 does not require introducing and
reacting precursors to deposit material on a substrate prior to
removing the substrate from a chemical deposition chamber, as
does representative claim 29. Rather, claim 13 begins with
cleaning gas introduction, albeit claim 13 is open to other steps
including deposition steps given the “comprising” transitional
term utilized therein. As for the separate mention of
independent claim 13 at page 11 of the brief, we note that the
arguments presented for that claim mirror the arguments made for
representative claim 29, which we find unpersuasive for reasons
set forth above and in the answer.
Concerning the examiner’s separate obviousness rejection of
claims 21 and 23, appellants argue claims 21 and 23 together.
Thus, we select claim 21 as the representative claim on which we
shall decide this appeal as to this rejection.
Appellants refer to the same arguments made against the
examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 13, 15, 29, and 31 as
being unpatentable over Nguyen in view of Ameen and Mandrekar in
arguing against the examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 21
and 23 as being unpatentable over those same references further
taken with Satoh. For the reasons and factual findings set forth
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007