Appeal 2007-2185
Application 10/614,992
280 (i.e., second edge ring) via the pins 272. We agree with the Examiner
that, from the preceding disclosure, Koai provides “mating engagement” of
the purge ring 280 (i.e., second edge ring) and the edge ring assembly 200
(i.e., first edge ring).
Moreover, Koai discloses in Figure 2(c) that pins 272, bolts 271, and
the recesses that receive pins 272 and bolts 271 are tapered (Koai, Figure
2(c), reference numerals 271 and 272). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have considered that the pins 272 and the pin receiving
recesses are tapered. Accordingly, Appellants’ argument regarding the
tapered pins and matching tapered recesses is not persuasive.
We affirm the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claims 3-6, 8-14, and
17-25 over Koai.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-6, 8-14, and 17-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being unpatentable over Cheng is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-6, 8-14, and 17-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being unpatentable over Koai is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
clj
Patterson & Sheridan, LLP
3040 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77056
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: September 9, 2013