Appeal 2006-2988
Application 10/107,322
We consider first the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claim 19 over
Moriya. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s factual determination that
Moriya, like Appellants, describes a dry-etching apparatus that “is equipped
with means for admitting up to three different process gasses [sic] to the
etching chamber” (Answer 3, last paragraph). Appellants also do not
challenge the Examiner’s findings that the process gases of Moriya are
stored in separate tanks that are connected to a gas shower head and that “[a]
controller (111) is used to control the flow rate of each gas admitted to the
etching chamber during the etching process” (id.). Likewise, Appellants do
not contest the Examiner’s finding that the reference “controller is also used
to control the amount of power applied to both the anode, and the cathode
electrodes during the etching process” (sentence bridging pages 3 and 4 of
Answer). Based on these uncontested findings of the Examiner, we agree
with the Examiner that Moriya describes an apparatus having the claimed
structure within the meaning of § 102.
Appellants’ principal contention is that Moriya does not describe the
claimed “source of an etching gas comprising chlorine gas, oxygen gas and
one of either hydrogen gas or hydrogen chloride gas” (claim 19). Appellants
contend that “the gases themselves provided as part of such claimed
‘source’, are an important and claimed element of the claimed invention”
(sentence bridging pages 6 and 7 of principal Brief). Appellants further
explain that:
[T]he inclusion of the specific etching gas comprising chlorine
gas, oxygen gas and one of either hydrogen gas or hydrogen
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007