Appeal 2007-3195
Application 09/824,936
well settled that the test for combining references is not what the individual
references suggest, as if applied alone. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981). See also, In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389
(Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references
be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”).
Here, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s arguments are not
persuasive of any reversible error in the Examiner’s first stated rejection
(Answer 11-12). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
construct the apparatus of Hanada to handle available substrate sizes that
would need to be processed, including relatively large substrates, including
substrates of a dimension corresponding to the claim 1 dimension as
disclosed by Shang.
Moreover, we note that Hanada provides for homogenous treatment of
wafers using high plasma densities (high RF frequencies) by employing an
insulating capacitor associated with the lower electrode (Hanada, ¶¶ 16-20).
Given this teaching of Hanada, Appellant’s argument to the effect that non-
uniformities would not be compensated for if the proposed modifications
were made (“standing wave effect”) are not found persuasive (Br. 11; Reply
Br. 5-6). Moreover, we note that Appellant’s argument concerning this lack
of expectation of success in a scale up to handle larger substrates is not
buttressed by any persuasive evidence.3
3 See Appellant’s Evidence Appendix attached to the Brief wherein no
evidence is identified. Also, we agree with the Examiner’s reasoning in
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013