Appeal 2006-3124
Application 10/251,179
such, Appellants assert that Tanaka’s feed gear 20 is structurally and
functionally different from the claimed "adjustment mechanism for adjusting a
gap between a substrate and a surrounding ring in a plasma processing
apparatus." Br. 10. According to Appellants, Tanaka’s feed gear 20 is
constructed specifically to support a substrate (wafer 22) on its top face 28
and to elevate and lower the substrate supported on the top face 28 via
elevating/lowering ring 26 under stage 24. Appellants note that both
Fukuyama and Koike relate to adjustment of a single ring disposed along the
circumferential part of, but not underlying, the substrate. Thus, Appellants
disagree with the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to use Tanaka’s mechanism as the drive
mechanism for elevating and lowering a ring as in Fukuyama’s or Koike’s
devices. See Br. 17-19 and 22-24.
An obviousness analysis is based on several factual inquiries: (1) the
scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and
the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if any.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Where the Examiner combines various components described in separate prior
art references, he must identify a reason for the combination: a teaching, a
motivation, an incentive, or a suggestion. In re Laskowski, 871 F.2d 115, 117,
10 USPQ2d 1397, 1398-99 (Fed. Cir. 1989). This requires the Examiner to
consider the thinking of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention, “guided only by the prior art references and the then-accepted
wisdom in the field.” In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d
1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007