Appeal No. 95-2728
Application 07/735,668
over Kawasaki in view of Arikado and Suzuki alone or further
in view of Tazi.
Notwithstanding the above discussed deficiencies of the
Kawasaki reference, it is appropriate to sustain the
examiner's
§ 103 rejection of apparatus claims 29 through 35 and 46.
This is because it is reasonable to consider patentee's means
for generating a high acceleration/bias voltage for removing a
protective film as being capable of likewise removing a
residue. Stated otherwise, we believe that the corresponding
elements claimed by the appellants and disclosed by Kawasaki
for generating a high acceleration/bias voltage possess the
same characteristics or capabilities. In re Glass, 474 F.2d
1015, 1019, 176 USPQ 529, 532 (CCPA 1973). Viewed from this
perspective, the here claimed apparatus is indistinguishable
from the apparatus of the Kawasaki reference. The mere fact
that the apparatus defined by the appealed claims is utilized
for removing a residue (as opposed to removing a protective
film as in the Kawasaki method) does not render these claims
patentable as the appellants seem to believe. It is well
settled that the manner or method in which a machine or
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007