Appeal No. 2006-0216
Application No. 10/325,203
In addition, we share the examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious for
an artisan to practice the adjusting steps of Holland or Collins during the etching and
deposition processes disclosed therein so as to restore a degraded plasma to the uniform
or optimized condition desired by these references. The result of this provision would
satisfy the here claimed requirement “wherein the first energizing step is performed during
a [etching or deposition] process”.
For the above stated reasons, we also hereby sustain the examiner’s § 103
rejections of claims 25-28, 33-36, 40 and 44 as being unpatentable over either Holland or
Collins.
SUMMARY
We have sustained each of the § 102 and § 103 rejections advanced on this appeal.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007