Appeal 2007-0127
Application 09/749,916
1 We have already rejected this argument as to claim 30, so we also reject it as
2 to claim 33.
3 (IID) Claims 34, 35, and 36
4 The Appellants urge that, for these three claims, “the gas outlets have
5 a diameter of about 0.025 inch to about 0.028 inch” (Br., p. 24, ll. 2-3, 9-10,
6 and 15-16), and that the combination of Degner, Murai, and Saito does not
7 disclose this feature. However, as discussed supra, the Appellants have not
8 established that 0.02 inches is patentably distinct from “about 0.025” inch as
9 recited in the claim.
10 Accordingly, we are not persuaded of reversible error on the part of
11 the Examiner.
12 (IIE) Claim 40
13 The Appellants urge that claim 40, which depends from claim 21,
14 recites the electrode assembly of claim 21 “and a confinement ring” (Br., p.
15 25, ll. 3-4). Substantively, we have already shown that this argument is
16 factually incorrect and reject it again. Moreover, merely pointing out what
17 the claims cover does not amount to an argument of separate patentability as
18 required by Bd. R. 37 (c)(vii).
19 We therefore are unpersuaded by this argument of error.
20 (III) The Rejection of Claims 1, 4-10, 30, 38, 39, and 41 Under 35
21 U.S.C. §103(a) over Murai in view of Degner
22 The Examiner has found that Murai describes a low resistivity
23 electrode (ref. num. 2) adapted to be mounted in a parallel plate plasma
24 reaction chamber (ref num. 5) used in substrate processing, the electrode
25 comprising a single crystal silicon electrode having an electrical resistivity
30
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013