Appeal No. 2006-2209
Application No. 10/270,913
(Brief, p. 6). Appellants further argue that the prior art
teaches away from the claimed invention by encouraging the use
of higher bias. (Brief, p. 7).
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. A reference is
available for all that it teaches to a person of ordinary skill
in the art. In re Inland Steel Co., 256 F.3d 1354, 1356, 60
USPQ2d 1396, 1401-02 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft
Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir.
1989)(“[t]he facts that a specific [embodiment] is taught to be
preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the
prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be
considered” quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ
278, 280 (CCPA 1976)). Ying ‘494 discloses that plasma etching
can take place at a low bias of 150 watts. Consequently, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably
expected that plasma etching would occur at a bias slightly
below 150 watts.
Appellants’ arguments presented in the Reply Brief have
been fully considered. These arguments are unpersuasive for
the reasons set forth above and stated in the Answer.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007