Appeal No. 2006-0291
Application No. 09/820,692
the examiner (Answer, pages 4-6), and rely as well on our comments above regarding
result-effective variables. For instance, appellants argue that the flow rates recited in
claim 8 on appeal are not disclosed or suggested by Liu in view of Schmitt (Brief, pages
15-16). However, not only does Liu teach overlapping ranges of flow rates for each
claimed component (see Table 4 and col. 10, ll. 27-29), but Liu teaches that optimizing
an “etching recipe” would have been well within the ordinary skill in this art (col. 11, ll.
55-64).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we determine that the
examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference
evidence. Based on the totality of the record, including due consideration of appellants’
arguments and evidence, we determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs
most heavily in favor of obviousness within the meaning of section 103(a). Accordingly,
we affirm the rejection on appeal.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2004).
AFFIRMED
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007