Appeal No. 2005-0900
Application No. 10/098,588
We consider first the rejection of claims 2, 3, 8 and
9 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The rejection
states that the radius of the supporting face of the wafer table
is compared to objects whose length is variable. The examiner
also states that in addition to comparing the support face size
to the substrate size, it is also compared to an indefinite
length parameter “half value width” referred to in the
specification (answer, page 3).
Appellants argue that the examiner has failed to take
into account the level of skill of persons skilled in this art.
Specifically, appellants argue that persons skilled in this art
would understand that a half value width is the width of a peak
at its half maximum value. Appellants note that once an etching
rate distribution peak is obtained as shown in Figure 2, persons
skilled in the art would understand what is covered by the claims
(brief, pages 3-7).
The examiner responds that it would be possible to find
parameters which would result in a “half value width” which could
make any other design an infringement, including the ones which
did not use the approach taken by appellants (answer, page 5).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007