Appeal 2007-0127
Application 09/749,916
1 technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
2 skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
3 same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
4 beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
5 The Appellants have not explained why the allegedly different
6 principles of operation mean that the resistivity teaching would not have
7 transferred to Degner’s electrodes. No persuasive evidence has been put
8 forth by the Appellants to prove their argument, and accordingly they have
9 failed to carry their burden of proof.
10 Accordingly, we are not persuaded by this contention.
11 Finally, the Appellants urge that the unexpected results presented in
12 the Hubacek declaration rebut the prima facie case of obviousness. (Br.,
13 p.28, ll. 1-3). As discussed above, we are not persuaded by those results
14 which are not probative of unexpected results.
15 (IIIB) Claims 6 and 7
16 The Appellants urge that the combination of Murai and Degner “does
17 not recognize the unexpected advantages” of the low resistivity silicon
18 electrode of claim 1, or the low resistivity of claims 6 and 7. (Br. p. 28, ll. 9-
19 12). As we have determined that the test results do not establish
20 nonobviousness as discussed above, we are not persuaded by this argument.
21 (III-C) Claims 8-10
22 Claim 8 reads as follows:
23 8. A plasma etch reactor comprising an electrode
24 assembly which includes the electrode of Claim 1, the electrode
25 comprising:
26 a graphite backing ring elastomer bonded to the
27 electrode; and
32
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013