Appeal 2007-1394
Application 10/301,464
wafer pedestal plate and a wafer for contacting and holding the wafer away
from contact with the plate itself. After all, in an obviousness assessment,
skill is presumed on the part of the artisan, rather than the lack thereof. In re
Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 226 USPQ 771 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Also, Appellants have not advanced any compelling argument
asserting, much less evidence that establishes, that the edge ring shape of
contact material employed for the wafer pedestal plate, including the cross-
sectional shape recited in dependent claims 9-14 and 20-25, is attended by
any unexpected results. In this regard, we note that no evidence is cited by
Appellants in the Evidence Appendix to the Brief. In other words, this
appeal record reflects that the claimed subject matter is attended by
predictable and expected results.
Because we further determine that Appellants have not identified
reversible error in the subsidiary arguments presented in the Brief with
respect to the separately argued claims, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections
for substantially the reasons set forth in the Answer and as set forth in this
Decision.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 5-8 and 15-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over APA or Yang, each in view
of Babb; and to reject claims 9-14 and 20-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over APA or Yang, each in view of Babb and Nulman is
affirmed.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013