Appeal 2007-4189
Application 10/164,986
Thus, materials that are employed in semiconductor etch chamber
equipment must be capable of surviving high temperature and hostile
environments. The Examiner has not identified, nor have we discovered, the
portions of Flach and Clark that indicate the dowel material described
therein would have been capable of withstanding the high temperature and
hostile environment employed in semiconductor etch chamber equipment.
Thus, we determine that Flach and Clark are not reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem to be solved.
For these reasons, and those presented by Appellants in the Brief, we
determine that there is an insufficient basis to combine the teachings of the
cited prior art. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11.
Claims 21-292
The subject matter of claim 21 is a different matter. Claim 21 does
not specify the materials from which the dowels are made. Appellants
contend that the structure of independent claim 21 is not described by the
AAPA. Specifically, Appellants contend that Figure 2A discloses only blind
holes formed in the first ring, and not in the second ring, and Tolles does not
describe blind holes in a first and second ring (Br. 10).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because AAPA discloses
that the dowels can be inserted into the second ring. Although not depicted
in Figure 2A, the AAPA discloses “[t]he locating pins 60 which are formed
of quartz material integrally with or inserted into the lower ring 56”
(Specification 10, emphasis added). Thus, it can be reasonably inferred that
2 Appellants have not presented separate arguments for claims 22-29. The
arguments presented in the Brief are the same as the arguments presented for
claim 21 (See Br. 10-12). Thus, we will limit our discussion to claim 21.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013