Appeal 2007-0496
Application 10/273,147
Considering now the ground of rejection of claim 18, dependent on
claim 10, we determine the plain language of this claim does not specify that
the claimed apparatus has a heater. The teachings of Ito, added to the
combined teachings of Anderson, Lee, and Shi, do not address the limitation
of the position of the transparent plate relative to the internal surface of the
chamber in claim 18, which limitation in any event is not argued by
Appellants. See Office Action 9-10; Br. 19.
Accordingly, the Examiner having established a prima facie case of
obviousness, we affirm the ground of rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) on the combined teachings of Anderson, Lee, Shi, and Ito for the
reasons discussed with respect to claim 10 and the combined teachings of
Anderson, Lee, and Shi.
With respect to the ground of rejection of claim 19, dependent on
claim 10, which specifies that the apparatus of claim 10 has a stirring fan
within the deposition chamber, the Examiner’s contention that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have used Suzuki’s stirring fan 12 in the CVD
apparatus of the combined teachings of Anderson, Lee, and Shi is not
disputed by Appellants in relying on arguments advanced with respect to
claim 10 and the combined teachings of Anderson, Lee, and Shi which we
addressed above. See Office Action 10; Br. 20.
Thus, the Examiner having established a prima facie case of
obviousness, we affirm the ground of rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) the combined teachings of Anderson, Lee, Shi, and Suzuki as well.
We do not reach the same conclusion with respect to claim 17, also
dependent on claim 10. The plain language of claim 17 attempts to modify
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013