Appeal 2006-1512
Application 10/131,455
Claims 1, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee in view of Takashi; and Claims 5 and 10 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee and Takashi in view of
Stevens.
Appellant has grouped the arguments for these rejections together.
(See Brief 20). Appellant has not presented separate arguments directed to
the individual claims within these rejections. We select claim 1 as
representative.
Appellant contends that the combination of Lee and Takashi or the
combination of Lee Takashi and Stevens does not teach or suggest an edge
exclusion lip having at least a portion of a bottom surface slope from a first
height to a second height smaller than the first height as specified in the
claimed invention (Br. 20). Appellant further contends that the chamfered
part of Takashi does not teach or suggest a surface slope from the first height
to a second height (Br. 20).
Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive. The Examiner cites
Takashi for teaching that it was obvious to slope the bottom surface of the
clamp ring to reduce stress on the film to prevent peeling and possible
contamination of the deposited film (Answer 5). As such a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the clamp ring
of Lee could include a slope from the first bottom surface to the second
bottom surface with the expectation of gaining the advantages described by
Takashi.
As a final point, we note that Appellant’s has not relied upon evidence
of unexpected results in response to the Examiner's obviousness rejections.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013