Appeal 2007-0127
Application 09/749,916
1 The Appellants urge that the combination of Murai and Degner fails
2 to suggest modifying Murai’s apparatus to include a showerhead electrode,
3 and Saito fails to suggest modifying Murai’s apparatus “to include a
4 showerhead electrode comprising the combination of features recited in
5 Claims 3 and 27.” (Br., p. 30, ll. 16-22). We are not persuaded.
6 First, the Appellants have not explained with any specificity what
7 features of claims 3 and 27 are relied upon in making this argument.
8 Secondly, the Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner’s
9 combination of references illustrating that each element of the claimed
10 subject matter is either disclosed as conventional in the art or obvious in
11 view of the art is in error.
12 The Appellants again urge that the Hubacek declaration contains
13 unexpected results sufficient to overcome the evidence of obviousness. As
14 we have previously found the Hubacek declaration to be entitled to little
15 weight, we find that the prima facie case of obviousness has not been
16 overcome.
17 (VI-B) Claims 21, 25, 31, 33, 34 35, 36, and 40
18 The Appellants urge that the claim elements of a showerhead
19 electrode, namely gas outlets of from about 0.25 inch to 0.30 inch, an
20 electrode thickness of from about 0.25 inch and 0.5 inch, and an electrical
21 resistivity of less than about 0.1 ohm-cm, with a backing ring elastomer
22 bonded to the electrode, render it patentable. The Appellants state that as the
23 combination of references fails to provide a suggestion or motivation to
24 modify Murai’s apparatus to include a showerhead electrode with the gas
35
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013