Appeal No. 2003-1501
Application 09/756,929
53 through 57 and 60 through 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rigali in
view of Ito (answer, page 6).
Appellant groups the claims into four groups for purposes of appeal, wherein the claims
in each group stand or fall together, with the four groups represented by claims 43, 47, 53 and 56,
respectively (brief, page 5). With respect to appealed claim 56, appellant relies on the same
arguments made with respect to the same and similar claim language that appears in appealed
claim 53 and other claims (brief, pages 16 and 19-20; reply brief, pages 11 and 14-15). Thus, we
decide this appeal based on appealed claims 43 and 47 with respect to the first ground of
rejection, and on appealed claim 53 with respect to the second ground of rejection. 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7) (2002).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellant, we
refer to the examiner’s answer and to appellant’s brief and reply brief for a complete exposition
thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in
agreement with the supported finding advanced by the examiner that as a matter of fact, prima
facie, appealed claims 43 and 47 are anticipated by Rigali (answer, page 5). Based on our
review, we further are in agreement with the supported conclusion advanced by the examiner that
as a matter of law, prima facie, one of ordinary skill in this art would have found in the combined
teachings of Rigali and Ito the reasonable suggestion to modify the apparatus of Rigali by adding
thereto a heat source in a plasma processing apparatus as required by appealed claim 53 in the
reasonable expectation of controlling the temperature of a workpiece (answer, page 6).
Accordingly, since a prima facie case of anticipation has been established over Rigali
with respect to appealed claims 43 and 47, and a prima facie case of obviousness has been
established over the combined teachings of Rigali and Ito with respect to appealed claim 53, we
have again evaluated all of the evidence of anticipation and non-anticipation and all of the
evidence of obviousness and nonobviousness based on the record as a whole, giving due
consideration to the weight of appellant’s arguments in the brief and reply brief. See generally,
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007