Appeal No. 1998-2916
Application No. 08/606,975
to the description in the specification which includes
comparative examples at pages 7-10 which indicate the complete
conformal nature of a Ti layer with the inner surface of a
contact hole at a plasma deposition flow rate of TiCl to H at4 2
a ratio of 0.8. In contrast, at a TiCl to H flow rate ratio4 2
of 0.2, a granular non-conformal Ti layer resulted. We do not
find such evidence to be persuasive. We note initially that
the burden is on Appellant to show that any difference in test
results are in fact unexpected and significant. Ex parte
Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318,
1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Further, the evidence
presented must be commensurate in scope with the claims which
the
evidence is offered to support. Where the claimed limitations
in
question involve a prescribed range of values, it is important
to consider whether the showing of alleged unexpected results
occurs over the entire claimed range. In re Clement, 622 F.2d
1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Our review of the
comparative example evidence presented in Appellant’s
specification indicates a particular lack of a showing down to
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007