Appeal No. 1999-0763
Application No. 08/529,322
103 for obviousness in view of either admissions of prior art
in appellant's specification (pages 1-4) or Heller et al.
(5,292,558), taken in combination with Cheng et al.
(5,215,619) and Turner et al. (5,281,320).
The appealed claims relate to a method for back-etching
of tungsten-coated substrate surfaces by pressing the
substrate against a cooled specimen holder during back-etching
with a retaining ring having prong-shaped extensions.
Based upon the record before us, we agree with appellants
that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness. Accordingly, we shall reverse the rejection
at issue for the following reasons.
It is not enough that the prior art may suggest that
fingers or prongs are the functional equivalent of a retaining
ring which extends around the entire periphery of a substrate.
For instance, see Cheng et al. (column 13, lines 22-26). This
does not end the inquiry since appellants' claims further
require that the prong-shaped extensions must be "back-up free
relative to etching products liberated in the back-etching,
causing the etching products to flow past the prong-shaped
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007