Appeal 2007-0127
Application 09/749,916
1 to modify Degner’s apparatus to use an electrode of electrical resistivity of
2 less than 0.05 ohm-cm and a plurality of bores having diameters of 0.5 mm,
3 as one of ordinary skill in the art would have been taught that such an
4 electrode is suitable for plasma processing. (Answer, p. 16, l. 12 – p. 17, l.
5 16).
6 The Appellants urge that Saito discloses an electrode thickness of less
7 than 0.2 inch, and Degner teaches to minimize electrode thickness. (Br., p.
8 38, ll. 16-20). As discussed above, this argument was unpersuasive.
9 Accordingly, we agree that the Examiner has met the burden of establishing
10 obviousness, and the Appellants have not shown any error.
11 The Appellants also urge that the results in the Hubacek declaration
12 established unobviousness. (Br., p. 38, l. 21 – p. 39, l. 2). We have found
13 the Hubacek declaration unconvincing for the reasons cited above.
14 The Appellants recite the limitations of (1) Claims 21, 25, 31, and 37;
15 (2) 30, 33, and 38; (3) 34; (4) 35; (5) 36; (6) 39; (7) 40; and (8) 41 in
16 separate headings from pages 39-42 of the Brief. For (1) and (3)-(8) above,
17 we again observe that reciting claim elements does not constitute a separate
18 argument for patentability.
19 For claims 30, 33, and 38 the Appellants argue that Saito’s silicon
20 sheet is “much thinner” than the electrode recited in claim 30. (Br., p. 40, ll.
21 10-11). The Appellants argue that Saito does not suggest modifying
22 Degner’s electrode to result in the claim 30 electrode of thickness of about
23 0.375 inch to 0.5 inch. (Id., lines 14-17).
24 We disagree. The claimed range of claim 30 is no thinner than the
25 thickness disclosed by Degner as suitable. It is the combination of these two
39
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013