Appeal No. 95-3366
Application No. 08/113,550
electrons on the workpiece, we find that the process parameters
disclosed in the references bear such a close correspondence to
the parameters disclosed in appellants' specification that it is
reasonable to conclude that the prior art processes generate
electrons which impinge the surface of the workpiece being
treated. We invite particular attention to a comparison of the
paragraph bridging pages 12 and 13 of appellants' specification
and claims 7 and 8 of European '550. Claim 7 of the reference
recites high-voltage pulses at a frequency of 100 Hz, a value
that falls directly within appellants' range of 10 Hz to about
3,000 Hz. Likewise, claim 7 of the reference and appellants'
specification employ a pulse lasting 1 microsecond. Also, claim
8 of the reference applies a voltage of 1,500 volts, which falls
directly within appellants' voltage of 1 kilovolt to about 100
kilovolts. Accordingly, based upon this close correspondence in
operating conditions for generating a plasma of nitrogen for
treating a workpiece, we find no merit in appellants' contention
that "[t]here is no disclosure of heating the article by pulsed
electron bombardment from a plasma" (page 13 of Brief).
Appellants have not proffered the requisite objective evidence
which establishes that the process of European '550 does not
necessarily produce a pulsed electron bombardment. We also are
not persuaded by appellants' argument that "[t]his reference does
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007