Appeal 2006-2992
Application 10/073,710
Appellants contend that Gruen is silent regarding the exclusion of
oxygen and nitrogen from the gas mixture and no reference teaches using
less than 10 ppm of oxygen or nitrogen in the process (Br. 9-10).
Appellants also contend that Gruen positively teaches that nitrogen
can be used as an alternative “inert gas” in place of argon, thus showing that
Appellants have proceeded contrary to accepted wisdom (Br. 11).
Appellants contend that the Asmussen references fail to disclose that
their apparatus is “essentially free of leaks” as required by claim 1 on appeal
(Br. 13-14).
The Examiner contends that Gruen discloses gases used in the claimed
process which do not contain nitrogen or oxygen, while also teaching the
exclusion of oxygen (Answer 3 and 9). The Examiner also contends that the
apparatus of the Asmussen references is not taught as having leaks (Answer
10).
The issues in this appeal are as follows:
(1) does Gruen disclose, teach or suggest that the gases generating the
plasma are “essentially free from oxygen or nitrogen” as required
by claim 1 on appeal?; and
(2) do the Asmussen references teach the use of an apparatus that is
“essentially free from leaks of nitrogen or oxygen” as required by
claim 1 on appeal?
We answer these questions in the affirmative. We determine that the
Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the
reference evidence, which prima facie case has not been persuasively
rebutted by Appellants’ arguments and evidence. Therefore we AFFIRM all
rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer with the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013