Appeal No. 1998-0038
Application No. 08/236,780
optimization for the best results, see In re Aller,
et al., [220 F.2d 454] 105 U.S.P.Q. 233 [CCPA 1955].
(See page[s] 109 and 112).
This conclusion of obviousness is deficient in a number of
respects.
First of all, the 0.5 eV to several MeV energy range
disclosed by George relates to the energy levels capable of
being produced by available ion guns or ion beam generators
and not to energy levels adequate for effectively cleaning
cryogenic substrates as the examiner would have us believe.
Instead, the energy levels specifically taught by George as
being adequate for this latter purpose range from over 1 to 5
keV (e.g., see the sputter rate graph on the second page of
text and the second full paragraph on the last page of text).
It is significant that these specifically disclosed energy
levels of George are orders of magnitude higher than the
maximum value claimed by the appellants. While the
optimization of a result effective parameter generally would
have been obvious as indicated by the examiner in his above-
quoted obviousness conclusion, an exception to this general
rule occurs when, as here, the claimed parameter values lie
significantly outside the value range taught by the prior art
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007