Appeal No. 2000-1058 Page 6
Application No. 08/673,972
Concerning this matter, we observe that Coburn describes
a method for increasing the etch ratio of silicon dioxide to
silicon by use of a solid surface formed of fluorine scavenger
material in a discharge region. However, the examiner has not
shown that Coburn describes a plasma etch process identical
with appellants process including the supply of a gaseous
source of silicon or carbon in addition to the supply of
fluorine containing gas to a vacuum container while coupling
RF energy into the chamber so as to reasonably suggest the
formation of a passivating polymer as called for in the
appealed claims. Similarly, the examiner has not established
that the process of Douglas is substantially the same as that
of appellants so as to necessarily result in the formation of
a passivating polymer on an article.
Inherency simply cannot be established based on
conjecture and/or probabilities or possibilities. See In re
Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981); Ex
parte Skinner,
2 USPQ2d 1788, 1788-1789 (Bd. Pat. App. & Intf. 1986).
In order for a prima facie case of obviousness of the
claimed invention to be established, the prior art as applied
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007