Appeal 2007-1170
Application 10/971,698
Applicants' response
39. Freeman does not argue for the separate patentability of any of the
claimed subject matter. (Br. at 10–15.)
40. Freeman contends that none of the references provide any guidance
relevant to promoting uniformity of vapor efflux from apertures in a
deposition source, and that none of the references provide any guidance as to
ratios of volumes as recited in the claims on appeal. (Br. at 10-15.)
41. In particular, Freeman urges that Spahn describes only relations
among various linear dimensions of the container, and that Spahn does not
describe relations between volumes. (Br. at 13.)
42. Similarly, Freeman urges that neither Shen nor Hanson provides any
teaching relevant to volumes. (Br. at 14.)
43. Finally, Freeman argues that none of the secondary references provide
any teachings for optimizing efflux from a container providing a plurality of
apertures. (Br. at 15.)
44. Freeman concludes that the Examiner's rejection over Freeman 013,
Spahn, Shen, and Hanson should be reversed. (Br. at 15-16.)
C. Discussion
The burden on appeal is on the appellant, as the movant, to
demonstrate reversible error in the position taken by the Examiner.
As Freeman has not argued for the separate patentability of any claim,
we need consider only claim 1. We reproduce the critical limitations of
claim 1 here:
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013