Appeal 2007-0127
Application 09/749,916
1 This argument is unpersuasive. Degner expressly discloses that it is
2 desirable to form apertures or orifices through the plate in order to facilitate
3 introduction of reactant gases into the reactor volume. The pattern will be
4 circular, and laid out in a uniform symmetrical pattern. (Degner, col. 1, ll.
5 45-54). Degner also discloses a support annular ring (Degner, col. 5, l. 25),
6 made of graphite (Id., l. 16), which is elastomerically bonded to the
7 electrode (Id, col. 6, l. 67 - col. 7, l. 2). Furthermore, the Appellants have
8 not indicated why these limitations render the claims separately patentable;
9 see Bd. R. 37(c)(vii). Accordingly, we affirm this rejection as it applies to
10 claims 30 and 38.
11 (III-E) Claims 39 and 41
12 The Appellants urge that the Examiner “fails to identify” the claimed
13 confinement ring. (Br. p. 30, ll. 1-3). As noted above, this argument is
14 incorrect. We affirm this rejection as to claims 39 and 41.
15 (IV) The Rejection of Claims 3, 21, 25, 27, 31, 33-37, and 40 under
16 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Murai in view of Degner and Saito.
17 The Examiner has applied Murai and Degner as in the previous
18 rejections, and further found that Saito describes a parallel plate plasma
19 apparatus having an electrode with a plurality of bores having diameter of
20 0.5 mm (0.20 inch). (Answer, p. 11, ll. 3-7). The Examiner thus concludes
21 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the
22 apparatus of Murai modified by Degner and utilizing bores of the claimed
23 diameter in the showerhead electrode because Saito teaches that the diameter
24 is suitable. (Id., ll. 7-10).
25 (IV-A) Claims 3 and 27
34
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013