Appeal No. 2000-2093 Page 9
Application No. 08/730,385
choice for one of ordinary skill in the art. We do not agree. The claimed values for platen
rotation, independent rotation of the wafer, and speed of the wafer along a closed path of
rotation were set forth in the appellant’s original disclosure. They all are recited together in
claim 5, with the appellant arguing that they thus produce desirable results (Brief, pages 7
and 8). We note that Shendon teaches setting the speed of the orbiting substrate and the
rotating platen so that the nominal speed at the surface of the substrate is 1800-4800
centimeters per second, and that the speed of the rotating platen is less than 10 rpm.
However, not only does this platen speed fall outside of the range claimed by the appellant,
but there appears to be no information which would suggest to the artisan the ranges
recited in the claim.
It is our conclusion that Shendon fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in independent method claim 5, and
we therefore will not sustain the rejection of claim 5 or of claim 9, which depends from
claim 5.
Apparatus claims 14-16 depend from claim 13. We determined above that the
subject matter recited in claim 13 was anticipated by Shendon. Anticipation being the
epitome of obviousness (see In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA
1982)), considering claim 13 in the light of Section 103 does not change this conclusion.
In the absence of argument by the appellant of the separate patentability of claims 14-16,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007