Appeal No. 1997-3731
Application No. 08/152,089
of a transparent cover of quartz for the electrode with the
slot therein.
The examiner looks to the Japanese reference and to the
Bennett patent for a teaching of a tubular connection member
connecting a slot electrode to the wall of a reaction chamber.
However, it does not appear to us that glass tube 19 of the
Japanese document (Fig. 3) or the unspecified structure
connected to the perforated top electrode of Bennett would
have been suggestive of a tubular connection member connecting
a metal disc to a wall of a reaction chamber, as claimed.
As to the Levinstein ‘201 and Laporte references, the
examiner relies thereon as being suggestive of the claimed
detachably mounted cover member having an aperture. However,
it readily appears to us that each of these reference
addresses a coating not an apertured cover for detachable
mounting on an electrode.
Based upon our assessment of the evidence of obviousness,
it is evident to us that the teachings therein would not have
been suggestive of the particularly claimed dry etching
apparatus. As we see it, only by relying upon hindsight and
appellant’s own disclosure would one having ordinary skill in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007