Appeal No. 95-2728
Application 07/735,668
Having carefully studied the record before us, we
conclude that the rejection of apparatus claims 29 through 35
and 46 should be sustained but that the rejection of method
claims 21 through 28, 43 through 45 and 48 should not be
sustained.
The examiner's § 102 and § 103 rejections of the method
claims on appeal are based upon her position that the here
claimed “residue” corresponds to the protective film formed
from plasma polymerization products in Kawasaki's process.
However, this position is not well founded for the reasons
argued by the appellants in their briefs, which arguments are
supported by the disclosure of the subject application and the
Kawasaki declarations of record. It follows that the process
of Kawasaki, whether or not modified by the other applied
prior art, fails to satisfy the appellants' method claim
limitations relating to the removal or elimination of a
residue via a high acceleration or bias voltage.
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the
examiner's § 102 rejection of method claim 48 as being
anticipated by Kawasaki or her § 103 rejection of method
claims 21 through 28 and 43 through 45 as being unpatentable
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007