Appeal No. 1999-2122
Application No. 08/564,659
As an example, it is the Examiner’s position that the apparatus of
the prior art would be capable of performing the apparatus claim
105 function of depositing a substantially uniform thickness on the
surface of the substrate and on the walls of the groove in the
substrate. According to appealed claim 155 which depends from
claim 105, this function is achieved by virtue of the claim 105
apparatus capability of being operated at certain anode positive
voltages and certain target negative potentials. The Examiner has
provided no basis whatsoever for concluding that the apparatus of
the prior art possesses the capability of being operated at such
voltages and potentials. As a result, we are constrained to
conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
basis in support of his position that the prior art apparatus would
be capable of performing the apparatus claim 105 function. For
analogous reasons, the Examiner likewise has failed to carry his
burden of establishing a prima facie case with respect to the other
apparatus claims in groups (a) through (g) of this appeal3.
2(...continued)
[as the claim 105 apparatus]” (Answer page 5).
3 As a matter of clarification, we point out that appealed
claim 148 has been improperly listed by the Appellant in group
(f) since this claim does not recite the feature associated with
group (f). Clearly, claim 148 should be considered as part of
(continued...)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007