Appeal 2006-1512
Application 10/131,455
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 Stevens (Br. 14-15).4 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 Stevens is patentably distinct from the claimed invention.
C. The Obviousness Rejections
Claims 14, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stevens.
Appellant argues that Stevens does not disclose that the height of the
first stepped surface, closest to the substrate, is selected to minimize
accumulation of deposited materials on the side wall adjacent to the first
stepped surface. This is the same argument that was presented for claim 11
(See Brief 17). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive for the reasons set
forth above. Furthermore, Appellant’s argument does not address the
Examiner’s basis of rejecting the claims. Specifically, Appellant has not
addressed the Examiner’s position that the selection of the aspect ratios of
the roof surfaces was determined to minimize sticking due to the
accumulation of deposited materials.
4 Appellant has grouped the arguments for these claims together (Br. 14-15).
Therefore, we will limit our consideration to claim 11.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013