Appeal 2007-0127
Application 09/749,916
1 Thus, electrode thickness is recognized as being a result-effective variable.
2 Accordingly, on the present record, the weight of the evidence indicates that
3 selecting electrode thicknesses that fall in the Appellants’ ranges would have
4 been the result of optimization of result-effective variables. Such
5 optimization is presumptively obvious, and the Appellants have failed to
6 rebut the presumption. Thus, we are not persuaded of error on the part of the
7 Examiner.
8 The Appellants set out in separate sections discussions of the claim
9 elements of (1) Claims 21, 25, 31 and 37; (2) Claims 30, 33, and 38; (3)
10 Claim 34; (4) Claim 35; (5) Claim 36; and (6) Claims 39 and 41. Simply
11 reciting what a claim covers is not separate argument. Bd. R. 37 (c)(vii). To
12 the extent these sections reiterate the argument that Hubacek overcomes the
13 prima facie case of obviousness, that argument is unpersuasive for the
14 reasons discussed above.
15 (VI) The Rejection of Claims 1, 3-10, 21, 25, 27, 30, 31, and 33-41
16 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) over Degner in view of Saito.
17 The Examiner found that Degner describes a single silicon crystal
18 showerhead electrode for use in a parallel plate plasma reaction chamber,
19 having a thickness of from about 0.1 to 2 cm and an RF driven surface on
20 one side exposed to plasma and a graphite backing ring elastomer bonded to
21 the electrode. (Degner, Figs. 3, 4 and Tbl. 1). Saito describes a parallel plate
22 plasma apparatus having an electrode with resistivity as low as 0.001 ohm-
23 cm (col. 1, ll. 65-65). See the specific examples of 0.003, 0.01, 0.1 in the
24 table in columns 3 and 4. The Examiner concluded that it would have been
25 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
38
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013