Appeal 2007-2095
Application 10/378,493
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness based on the reference evidence in this record, which prima
facie case has not been adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments.
Therefore, we AFFIRM all grounds of rejection presented in this appeal
essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set
forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection over Strauch, Sillmon ‘855, and Löfgren
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
(1) Strauch discloses an apparatus for depositing crystalline layers on
a substrate that includes a processing chamber, a graphite carrier
plate heated from the rear by a high frequency coil, a cover plate, a
gas admission element, and a gas-discharge ring with a plurality of
gas outlet openings (Answer 3-4; see Strauch, Abstract; Fig. 1; ¶¶
[0002], [0003], [0004], [0015], [0016], and [0017]);
(2) Sillmon ‘855 discloses a gas-discharge ring constructed from
various types of materials capable of withstanding the operating
conditions within the reaction chamber of an epitaxial reactor,
where this material may be graphite (Answer 4; see Sillmon ‘855,
col. 2, ll. 30-31; and col. 4, ll. 40-47); and
(3) Löfgren discloses a device for the heat treatment of an object in a
susceptor, including epitaxial growth, in which all the walls of the
processing chamber are made of graphite (Answer 4; see Löfgren,
col. 1, ll. 7-18; col. 1, ll. 37-39; and col. 4, ll. 14-19).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013