Appeal 2007-3195
Application 09/824,936
being result effective for counteracting non-uniformities. Indeed, Appellant
employs a dielectric layer substantially like that disclosed by Hanada in
describing their proposed solution for operating with high frequencies and
large substrates (Specification 3; claim 1). Against this backdrop, such
argumentation is hardly persuasive of any reversible error in either of the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections. Moreover, as suggested by the
Examiner, the appealed subject matter, including representative claim 1, is
not drawn to a process wherein large substrates and high frequencies are
simultaneously employed. Rather, representative claim 1 is drawn to an
apparatus that is capable of handling large work pieces (substrates) and an
apparatus that requires a RF generator that is capable of producing
frequencies greater than 13.56 MHz rather than a method requiring the use
of high frequencies while processing a large substrate (Answer 12).
On this record, we are not persuaded of any reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejections based on the arguments made in the Briefs.
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hanada in view of Shang and
Collins and to reject claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hanada in view of Shang and Sato is affirmed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013