Appeal No. 2006-0856
Application No. 10/148,993
8, and 12-18 under section 103(a) over Egitto.
B. The Rejection over Egitto and Verzaro
The examiner finds that the pulsed plasma parameters are not disclosed by
Egitto and thus relies on Verzaro, who teaches an oxygen plasma that is pulsed for
treating polymeric materials, for the advantages of using such a pulsed plasma
(Answer, pages 6-7).
Appellants argue that the two processes are completely different in that Verzaro
teaches a coating deposited by plasma means while the present process exposes a
substrate containing
silicon material to an oxygen plasma to change the surface chemistry of the substrate
(Brief, pages 4-5).
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. The test of obviousness is not whether
the process of a secondary reference (Verzaro) is the same as the claimed process but
whether the combined disclosures of the applied prior art would have suggested the
claimed subject matter. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981). We adopt the findings of fact and conclusion of law as set forth by the
examiner (Answer, pages 6-8). Accordingly, we also affirm the examiner’s rejection of
claims 7-8 under section 103(a) over Egitto in view of Verzaro.
C. Summary and Time Period for Response
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007