Appeal No. 95-2413
Application 07/936,865
closed curve that truly meets the total arc lengths
limitation" (Br9). No mathematical relationships or
procedures are claimed and, thus, this argument is not
persuasive. Furthermore, prior art figure 4(a) of Suzuki
clearly teaches that the erosion profile is a function of the
arc length limitations.
Appellants argue that their teachings extend well beyond
attempting to achieve uniform erosion (Br9): "Applicant's
invention covers [sic] also covers non-planar targets and
non-uniform erosion profiles that are expressible as
functions." However, claim 36 does not require non-planar
targets or any special kind or number of erosion profile.
In conclusion, appellants' arguments are not persuasive
of nonobviousness and the rejection of claims 36-38, 45, and
47 over Suzuki, Sato '375 and Sato '374 is sustained.
Group 2 - claims 13-18, 22, 29, 30, 33-35, 42-44, and 603
The Group 2 claims require "concave" (independent
claims 13 and 34), "convex" (independent claims 16 and 35),
Claim 62 depends from claim 13 but has been grouped in3
Group 2. We consider claim 62 as part of Group 2 and to stand
or fall together with claim 13.
- 20 -
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007