Appeal No. 2006-2209
Application No. 10/270,913
‘494 teaches the desirability of higher etch rate which
suggests increasing the bias. (Brief, p. 5).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Ying ‘494
discloses plasma etching wherein the power supply can be as low
as 150 watts. Ying ‘494 further discloses the effects of power
in the etching process. More particularly the higher source
and bias powers lead to enhanced etch rates. (Paragraph
[0051]). As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have reasonably expected that plasma etching would occur at a
low bias of 150 watts. In cases involving adjacent ranges, we
and our reviewing Court have consistently held that a prima
facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range and the
prior art range do not overlap but are close enough such that
one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the
same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778
F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Consequently, we conclude that a prima facie case of
obviousness has been made out in this case.
Appellants argue that even if the bias may be considered
to be a result-effective variable the present invention is not
obvious because the prior art teaches increasing the bias.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007