Appeal No. 96-1179
Application 08/190,622
chamber where the first, collimated deposition occurs, the
reference does not explicitly state whether or not such non-
preferred second deposition is collimated. Appellant urges
that Talieh teaches that if the same chamber is used for the
first and second deposition steps, the collimator is used for
both depositions.
While appellant's position is not without merit, it is
our judgement that based upon the collective teachings of the
applied prior art as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it prima facie obvious to perform both the
collimated and non-collimated depositions of Talieh in the
same chamber by providing a drive means for moving the
collimator before the second deposition. Appellant does not
deny that one of ordinary skill in the art would been
motivated to employ a first, collimated deposition followed by
a second, non-collimated deposition. This much is
acknowledged in the section of the present specification
entitled Background Of The Invention
(see, specifically, page 2, lines 27-31). Since Talieh
teaches that the second deposition may be conducted in the
same chamber as the first, collimated deposition, we agree
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007