Appeal 2006-1512
Application 10/131,455
has not directed us to evidence that establishes that the clamp ring described
by Lee is patentably distinct from the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 11-17, Appellant has not argued that Lee does not
disclose a clamp ring comprising a roof having upper and lower surfaces, at
least one substrate contacting surface extending downwardly from the lower
roof surface, and a lip forming an inner terminus of the roof. Appellant also
has not argued that the lip of Lee is sized and adapted to extend inwardly
over the edge of the substrate while remaining vertically spaced from the
substrate or that the lip has a variable lower surface comprising at least first
and second lower surfaces wherein the first surface is disposed inwardly
from the second surface. Rather, Appellant contends that the limitation
appearing in the last stanza of claim 11 is not described in Lee (Br. 12-13).3
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of patentability. We agree with
the Examiner that the clamp ring is designed to reduce the probability of
sticking and bridging (accumulation of the positive material) between the
substrate and the clamp ring (Answer 8). Appellant has not directed us to
evidence that establishes that the clamp ring described by Lee is patentably
distinct from the claimed invention.
Claims 6, 7, 11-13, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Stevens.
The issue presented for review with respect to this rejection is: Does
the Stevens reference have a disclosure that anticipates the claimed subject
matter? The issue turns on whether Stevens describes a clamp ring for
3 Appellant has grouped the arguments for these claims together (Br. 12-13).
Therefore, we will limit our consideration to claim 11.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013