Appeal No. 1997-3731
Application No. 08/152,089
teachings, and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the5
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determination which follows.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of appellant’s
claims.
The “BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION” section of appellant’s
specification informs us that, prior to the present invention,
a plasma etching apparatus was known that included, inter
alia, a reaction chamber with a pair of electrodes therein and
a laser beam and detection system for monitoring the thickness
of the object to be etched. The object to be etched is placed
on one electrode and the beam of the laser passes through an
aperture in the opposing electrode. The apparatus is also
indicated to generally have a transparent cover of quartz on
the electrode with the aperture to protect the electrode from
5In our evaluation of the applied prior art, we have
considered all of the disclosure of each document for what it
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA
1966). Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into
account not only the specific teachings, but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably have
been expected to draw from the disclosure. See In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007