Appeal No. 2000-1371
Application No. 08/867,810
With respect to Group 3, we select independent claim 10 as representative of the
Group. Appellant argues that claim 10 is directed to a method of manufacturing a
nozzle plate with a nozzle orifice rounded portion (sag) below a predetermined amount
using an excimer laser and a working lens having a numerical aperture in the range of
0.13 to 0.35. (See brief at page 16 and reply at page 4.) We agree with appellant.
Appellant argues that Smith and Watanabe (applied to dependent claim 16) fail to
recognize the problem of "sag" and the correlation of numerical aperture and "sag." We
agree with appellant. Appellant argues that neither Smith nor Watanabe provides a
suggestion or motivation to change their structure. We agree with appellant. Nor do we
find that the examiner has provided a convincing line of reasoning for modifying the
method of Smith to use the numerical aperture in the claimed range to reduce "sag."
The examiner relies on routine experimentation to achieve the claimed range
and relies upon a stated relationship in Smith as a motivation to modify the numerical
aperture. (See final rejection at page 3 for the statement of the rejection as
incorporated into the answer and answer at pages 4-5.) We disagree with the
examiner, and find that this is at best an invitation to try. Without a recognition of the
problem, the skilled artisan would have no motivation to use routine experimentation in
Smith to manipulate the numerical aperture. From our review of Watanabe, Watanabe
does not remedy this deficiency in Smith. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 10 and dependent claims 11, 15, and 16 as grouped by appellant's.
GROUPS 2 AND 4
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007