Appeal No. 1998-0078
Application No. 08/478,814
Maher teaches multiple plasma etching vessels, each configured to perform separate
processing step on a wafer. (Column 1, lines 50 to 59). No one chamber is disclosed to
perform both ashing followed by light etching on a wafer within that chamber. Maher does
not disclose the sequential use of an etching gas supply source and ashing gas supply source.
Maher also does not describe a switching mechanism, for switching between various gas
supply sources, which is embodied by the claimed means for quickly switching between the
first and second gas supply. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Maher.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
It is well established that the examiner has the initial burden under § 103 to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88
(Fed. Cir. 1984). To that end, the examiner must show that some
objective teaching or suggestion in the applied prior art, or knowledge generally
available in the art would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed
invention. Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37
USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007