Appeal No. 2006-1871 Παγε 10
Application No. 10/245,442
gas distribution bottom plate, as claimed. Appellants argue,
similarly to the arguments advanced above, that the applied
references, individually or in combination, do not suggest the
desirability of combining elements from each to arrive at the
claimed subject matter. However, the examiner has furnished a
persuasive rationale (reproduced above) for the proposed
combination that is founded on the teachings of the references.
The rationale furnished by the examiner has not been specifically
addressed by, much less, persuasively rebutted by appellants in
the briefs. As for the heating of the gas distribution plate
bottom, the examiner (answer, page 10) notes that Nguyen and
Mandrekar teach/suggest that chamber gas distribution plate
feature.
As a final point, we note that appellants have not argued
that the claimed subject matter is attended by unexpected
results, much less furnished any evidence with the briefs in
support of such an argument.
Consequently, on this record, we sustain both of the
examiner’s § 103(a) rejections.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 13, 15, 29,
and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nguyen
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007