Appeal 2007-2134
Application 10/311,880
side as being defined in Appellants’ Specification, much less defined in such
a way that would exclude the heater (12) locations depicted in the various
drawing figures of Kuibira. Giving this claim term its broadest reasonable
construction as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art
when read in light of the Specification, we determine that the claimed heater
location encompasses a heater location surrounding gas supply shower holes
(11), as shown for the heater (12) in drawing figure 4 of Kuibira, for
example.
Concerning Appellants’ separate argument against the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 4 (Reply Br. 3), we agree with the Examiner that the
argued first and second gas ejection holes read on the gas supply shower
holes (11) of Kuibira. In this regard, the particular reactant gases, being
supplied through an ejection hole of the claimed apparatus, are not a part of
the apparatus but rather a material capable of being acted upon thereby.
Moreover, claim 4 is not limited to structure that requires separate plenums
connected to separate sets of ejection holes. After all, both organic metal
gas and an oxidizing gas can be introduced into the same ejection holes.
Thus, Appellants have not established reversible error in the Examiner’s
anticipation position that some of the shower holes of Kuibira can be read on
by the recited first ejection holes and other shower holes of Kuibira can be
read on by the recited second ejection holes of claim 4.
It follows that, on this record, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 3-11 over Kuibira.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013