Appeal No. 2005-0900
Application No. 10/098,588
and wafer radii which are consistent with dependent claims 3 and
9. The values recited in claims 3 and 9 must still have the
relationship based on the half value width recited in independent
claims 2 and 8. Since there is no mention in Yanagisawa or
Shinozuka that the half value width is determined, then there is
no support in the applied prior art for the rejection of claims
2 and 8. We also agree with appellants that the examiner’s
assumptions regarding wafer table size and wafer size are only
speculative on the part of the examiner and have nothing to do
with the half value width of an etching rate as claimed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007