Appeal 2007-0127
Application 09/749,916
1 (0.118 inch to 0.393 inch). This encompasses the claimed range of about
2 0.25 inches to 0.5 inches.
3 A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of
4 a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art. In re
5 Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
6 The Appellants’ argument that for reasons of economy one should use
7 as thin a piece of material as possible wholly ignores the last part of the
8 same sentence - “while providing sufficient material to permit extended use
9 before thinning of the material requires replacement.” In other words,
10 Degner teaches not to waste excess material, but to use enough for a long
11 life.
12 Thus Degner itself contradicts the Appellants’ assertion that “neither
13 Degner nor Murai suggests a low resistivity silicon electrode having the
14 thickness range of about 0.25 inch to 0.5 inch recited in Claim 1” (Br., p.
15 11, ll. 8-10). Degner’s commonly used range is 0.039 - 0.787 inch.
16 Accordingly, the Appellants’ argument is without merit.
17 The Appellants’ second argument is that the Examiner has established
18 no motivation for making Degner’s electrode material from the doped
19 material disclosed by Murai. (Br., p. 11, ll. 14-15). The Appellants base this
20 argument on their observation that Murai discloses a highly doped electrode
21 to avoid contamination, while Degner does not suggest doping a wafer in a
22 plasma processing chamber. (Br., p. 11, ll. 14-23).
23 This argument is likewise not persuasive.
24 We observe that Degner does not specifically disclose the resistivity
25 of the electrode material in the claimed range. However, Degner’s
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013