Appeal No. 96-0377
Application 07/979,254
still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the inventor is involved. In re Clay, supra. With
respect to the field of endeavor, we agree with the Examiner.
Since Steinberg and Appellants’ invention are classified in
the very same class and subclass in the Patent Office Manual
of Classification, i.e.,
Class 156 subclass 345, Differential Etching Apparatus, there
is little dispute that they are in the same field of endeavor.
We need go no further to answer the second question of the
particular problem which is involved.
Combinability
Appellants argue on pages 8 and 9 of the brief:
In this regard, the
unobvious-ness under 35 USC § 103
of the invention defined in
claims 1 and 9 over the applied
references is strongly reflected
by the fact that none of the
references address or in any way
appreciate the particular charge
buildup problem of coaxial plasma
processing apparatus which is
addressed and advantageously
overcome by the invention of the
independent claims.
And in their reply brief at page 2:
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007