Appeal No. 95-3366
Application No. 08/113,550
accelerating electrons from the plasma to the workpiece with a
series of pulses of positive voltage. However, none of these
references teaches or suggests treating a workpiece by a process
that includes voltage pulses. Accordingly, the stated references
fail to evidence a prima facie case of obviousness for the
claimed subject matter. The examiner states that "the examiner
assumes that a plasma produced under a given set of conditions
(voltage, power, etc.) would have a resultant certain effect with
respect to an amount of free electrons produced" (page 6 of
Answer). While it is hard to find fault with the examiner's
assumption, the applied references do not teach or suggest the
conditions of voltage pulses required by the appealed claims.
We will sustain the examiner's rejections under European
'550 and Dexter. It is well settled that when a claimed process
reasonably appears to be substantially the same as a process
disclosed by the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to
prove with objective evidence that the prior art process does not
necessarily or inherently possess characteristics attributed to
the claimed process. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d
1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255,
195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In the present case, although
neither European '550 nor Dexter expressly states that the
disclosed plasma-treating processes result in the impingement of
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007