Appeal 2007-0127
Application 09/749,916
1 instances the declaration fails to indicate that the results are anything other
2 than expected. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by this assertion.
3 As to claims 33, 34, 35, 36, and 40, the Appellants have recited the
4 claim limitations without any argument for separate patentability.
5 Accordingly, the Appellants have not persuaded us of error on the part of the
6 examiner and we affirm this rejection, See Bd. R. 37(c)(vii).
7 (V) The Rejection of Claims 1, 3-10, 21, 25, 27, 30, 31, and 33-41
8 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Saito in view of Degner.
9 The Examiner found that Saito describes (Saito, col. 1, ll. 6-8) a low
10 resistivity electrode in a parallel plate reaction chamber. The electrode is
11 single crystal silicon having a resistivity of 0.0001-40 ohm-cm (Saito, col. 1,
12 ll. 64-65, see also the specific examples in Table 1). The electrode is
13 coupled to RF sources and exposed to plasma, and has bores in it of 0.5 mm
14 (0.02 inch). (Examiner’s Answer, page 12, lines 10-21).
15 The Appellants urge that the Examiner has arbitrarily selected a
16 particular portion of Degner’s range, which is much higher than Saito’s
17 disclosed thickness, while disregarding other portions of Degner’s range that
18 are below or above the thickness range recited in claim 1. Finally, the
19 Appellants also urge that Degner teaches minimizing the electrode thickness.
20 As discussed above, Degner’s thickness range (0.1-2cm) (0.039 inch
21 to 0.787 inch) (Degner, col. 4, ll. 32-34) substantially overlaps the range of
22 0.25 to 0.5 inches recited in claim 1, rendering the Appellants’ range
23 selection obvious. Further, the teaching of minimizing the electrode
24 thickness is for purposes of economy and Degner in the same breath states
25 that the electrode should be thick enough to last (Degner, col. 4, ll. 28-29).
37
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013