Appeal 2006-2987
Application 10/661,651
Claim 8 is the broadest of the argued claims and, therefore, in
considering the general issues for this group of claims, we select claim 8 to
represent the issues on appeal. Claim 8 requires immersing a reference
panel of the same metal as the blade being treated in the etchant solution to
monitor particular dimensional changes and/or hydrogen absorption.
Appellants contend that there is no proper motivation taught in Law
for combining the teachings of this reference with those of the other
references (Br. 13-14). Appellants point out that Law monitors the etching
of a pattern rather than the change in dimension of a part and the two are not
equivalent (Id.).
The issue is: Has the Examiner provided support by a preponderance
of the evidence for the finding of a reason, suggestion, or motivation arising
from within the prior art?
The evidence sufficiently supports the finding of the Examiner. As
found by the Examiner, Law describes a process of monitoring the removal
rate during etching (Answer 6; Law, col. 1, ll. 6-10). The reference panel is
merely a layer of metal on a substrate that is immersed in the same bath as
the workpiece (Law, col. 1, ll. 41-63). The cumulative amount of metal
removed at any given time from the workpieces and the reference panel is
directly indicated by the location of the edge of the indicator layer (Law,
col. 1, ll. 63-68). The function of the reference panel is the same whether
the workpiece is etched in a pattern, i.e, masked so that only a pattern is
etched, or completely etched, i.e., immersed without masking. Therefore, its
use in monitoring of etching processes such as chemical milling is evident
from the nature and function of the process.
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013