Appeal No. 2002-1228 Page 6
Application No. 09/124,831
myriad of techniques present in the prior art for aligning one element or apparatus with
another, two of the steps of the White method of aligning pipe flanges under water as a
method of mounting an electrode assembly on a plasma etching apparatus. Moreover,
as we understand the claimed methods from the language of the claims and from
pages 3 and 7 of the specification and 3 and 8 of the Revised Brief, the alignment pins
are inserted into apertures specified in one of the two elements, namely, the plasma
etching apparatus, and then are passed through corresponding apertures in said
electrode assembly. This sequence of steps clearly is not suggested by the prior art
relied upon. From our perspective, the only suggestion for combining the applied
references in the manner proposed by the examiner is found in the luxury of the
hindsight provided one who first viewed the appellants’ disclosure. This, of course, is
not a proper basis for a rejection under Section 103. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264,
23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The combined teachings of White and AAPA thus fail to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in independent claims 1
and 18. This being the case, we will not sustain the rejection of these claims or of
claims 3, 7, 10, 19 and 22, which depend therefrom.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 20, 21 and 23 stand rejected on the basis of White and
AAPA, taken further in view of Collignon, which is cited for teaching the features added
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007