Appeal 2007-0127
Application 09/749,916
1 This argument is baseless. In the Final Rejection, July 26, 2005, the
2 Examiner observed that Degner described “a graphite backing confinement
3 ring bonded to the electrode,” citing Degner, col. 5, ll. 15-17. Degner
4 describes annular rings of graphite from col. 5, ll. 5-35. Degner describes a
5 first insulating ring 90 and a second insulating ring 92 being provided
6 around the outer periphery of the electrode assembly. (Degner, col. 8, ll. 40-
7 42). Degner’s insulating rings protect the support ring 14 from direct
8 contact with the plasma and enhance the electrical field properties of the
9 electrode plate 12 during use. (Degner, col. 8, ll. 42-45). While Degner
10 does not specifically use the term “confinement” ring, these structures and
11 materials appear to be identical to the confinement rings described in the
12 present specification at p. 8, ll. 9-30. They appear to function in the same
13 manner as the claimed rings. The Appellants have not shown otherwise.
14 We therefore are unpersuaded by this argument of error.
15 (II) The Rejection of Claims 3, 21, 25, 27, 31, 33-37 and 40 under
16 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Degner in view of Murai and Saito.
17 (II-A) Claims 3 and 27
18 Claim 3 reads as follows:
19 3. The electrode of claim 1, wherein the gas outlets have
20 diameters of 0.020 to 0.030 inch and the gas outlets are
21 distributed across the exposed surface.
22
23 The Examiner has applied Degner and Murai as in the previous
24 rejection. Saito is relied upon for describing a parallel plate plasma
25 apparatus having an electrode with bores said to be suitably sized and having
26 diameters of 0.5mm (0.020 inches). The Examiner has concluded that it
27 would have been obvious to make the outlets of the apparatus of Degner as
27
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013