Appeal 2007-0127
Application 09/749,916
1 parallel plate plasma electrodes, and Murai informs a person having ordinary
2 skill in the art what a normal electrode resistivity should be. The Appellants
3 argue that the claimed electrode provides enhanced resistance to cracking at
4 high power levels, and a reduced electric resistivity. (Br., p. 13, l. 20 - p. 14,
5 l. 11), However, as noted above, the Appellants have not established that
6 the results relied upon are unexpected, and accordingly, we find them to
7 have little probative weight in support of nonobviousness. We also note that
8 none of the declaration results fall within the claimed thickness range of
9 0.375 to 0.5 inches (the thickest test was at 0.35 inches) and the absence has
10 not been explained. Accordingly, the results are without significant
11 probative value for claims 30 and 38.
12 (ID) Claims 39 and 41
13 Claim 39 reads as follows:
14 39. A plasma etch reactor comprising an electrode assembly
15 including the electrode of claim 1 and a confinement ring.
16
17 Claim 41 reads as follows:
18 41. A plasma etch reactor comprising an electrode assembly
19 including the electrode of Claim 30 and a confinement ring.
20
21 The Appellants urge for Claim 39 that the Examiner “fails to
22 comment on the claimed confinement ring” (Br., p. 20, l. 14) and that the
23 Examiner has “failed to identify any disclosure in Degner or Murai of a
24 plasma etch reactor comprising an electrode assembly that also includes a
25 confinement ring” (Id., ll. 16-18). The same argument is made for claim 41
26 on page 21 of the Brief.
26
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013