Appeal No. 2003-1501
Application 09/756,929
Cleaning Systems” (col. 6, lines 14-20; see also col. 7, lines 53-58). Rigali discloses that the
“PX series Plasma Cleaning Systems are batch processing apparatuses the reaction chambers of
which are adapted to contain plural workpiece magazines, each . . . containing a plurality of
workpieces or integrally joined workpiece sets, e.g., leadframes” (col. 2, lines 20-29), and
acknowledges that
[t]ypical workpieces which are treated by these PX series Plasma Cleaning Systems
are hybrid integrated circuits, leadframes, multi-chip modules, medical and electronic
devices, optical devices, plastic parts where bonding is required, flat panel image
displays, and parts, components, and substrates thereof. [Col. 1, lines 25-30.]
Thus, we find that one skilled in the art would have reasonably inferred from Rigali that
workpieces 100 which can be processed in plasma treatment apparatus 10 of the first
embodiment are the typical workpieces disclosed to be used with the PX series Plasma Cleaning
Systems. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]n
considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific
teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably
be expected to draw therefrom. [Citation omitted.]”). We further find that one skilled in the art
would have known that such typical workpieces would include the typical, “most popular”
encapsulated integrated circuits combined with lead frames, termed as “package,” “plastic
package,” etc., as acknowledged by appellant in the specification, as we discuss above (see p. 5).
In view of these facts, we are of the opinion that the examiner’s finding that the claim
limitations at issue here are met in fact by the plasma treatment apparatus 10 of the first
embodiment of Rigali is supported by substantial evidence because the reference discloses that
reaction chamber 16 houses workpieces 100 and has a source of plasma gas 30 coupled thereto
through conduit 30’, to which workpieces 100 are exposed in processing gap 140 between
magazines 92 and 94 therein. In this respect, we are further of the opinion that the examiner’s
finding in the answer (page 8) that one skilled in the art would recognize that the plasma
treatment apparatus 10 of the first embodiment of Rigali is capable of housing and treating
encapsulated objects as workpieces 100 is supported by substantial evidence, because one skilled
Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 579-80, 152 USPQ 235, 237-39 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937,
939-40, 136 USPQ 458, 459-60 (CCPA 1963).
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007