Appeal 2007-0127
Application 09/749,916
1 The Appellants urge that Saito fails to provide any motivation to
2 modify Degner’s electrode to include gas outlets having a diameter of from
3 about 0.025 inch to about 0.030 inch. (Br., p. 22, ll. 22 – p. 23, ll. 3). This
4 argument fails to address the description in Saito that establishes that gas
5 holes in a showerhead electrode are known to have a suitable diameter of
6 0.5 mm (0.02 inch). It also fails to address the fact that the instant claims
7 recite a diameter of “about 0.025” inch.
8 The Appellants have urged that this is a “hindsight” combination;
9 however, the Appellants have failed to explain why 0.02 is neither the same
10 as, or nonobvious in view of “about 0.025.” The term “about” indicates
11 some variability or “fuzziness” at the end point. We decline to construe it
12 merely numerically. Practically, a diameter of “x” is “about 0.025” when an
13 electrode with holes of “x” in diameter would perform substantially the same
14 function. Saito stands as evidence that this would be the case. The
15 Appellants’ attorney arguments are not evidence. Thus, the preponderance
16 of the evidence supports the Examiner’s position.
17 Accordingly, we are not persuaded by this argument.
18 (II-C) Claim 33
19 Claim 33 reads as follows:
20 33. The electrode of claim 30, wherein the gas outlets have diameters
21 of 0.020 to 0.030 inch and the gas outlets are distributed across the exposed
22 surface.
23 The Appellants argument does not address the additional
24 limitations of claim 33, but relies instead upon its argument that claim 30
25 was not properly rejected for lack of teaching as to the electrode thickness.
29
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013