Appeal No. 95-3366
Application No. 08/113,550
does not specify the particulars of voltage, frequency and time
for the process, European '550 evidences that the parameters
employed by appellants were known to the skilled artisan.
Appellants' argument that Dexter discloses ion plasma treatment
rather than electron plasma treatment does not satisfy
appellants' burden of placing of record objective evidence that
the Dexter process does not necessarily result in an electron
plasma treatment of the workpiece. In re Spada, 911 F.2d at 708,
15 USPQ2d at 1658; In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
We will also sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 32
under § 103 over either European '055 or Dexter in view of
Enomoto. We agree with the examiner that based on the teachings
of these references it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to mask a portion of the workpiece
being treated. Frankly, we do not understand appellants'
statement that "Enomoto does not deal at all with plasma
technology" (page 17 of Brief). We find it quite evident from
the reference disclosure of an ion-bombardment surface treatment
by the discharge of thermionicelectrons within an atmosphere of
reacted gas that a plasma is generated. In any event, even
without the Enomoto disclosure, we find it would have been
obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to mask the portions of
a workpiece for which heat treatment is not desired.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007