Appeal No. 96-1179
Application 08/190,622
of Talieh appears at col. 3, lines 13-18, which reads as
follows:
The second step of the deposition process is
generally depicted in FIG. 3. This second
deposition step is preferably, although not
necessarily, conducted in a different chamber from
the first deposition step, and is conducted in a
similar manner to the prior art deposition
processes.
There is apparently no dispute that Talieh, like
appellant, teaches a first deposition step through a
collimator and a second, non-collimated deposition. Indeed,
appellant acknowledges at page 14 of the principal brief that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
Talieh teaches a preference "that the second step be
preformed without collimation." (lines 4 and 5). A central
issue on appeal is whether Talieh, in conjunction with the
secondary references,
would have suggested performing the second, non-collimated
deposition in the same chamber wherein the collimated
deposition takes place, thereby necessitating a movable
collimator. Although Talieh teaches a non-preferable
embodiment of performing the second deposition in the same
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007