Appeal No. 96-3649
Application 08/344,509
groups of claims as set forth in the Brief at page 3. With the
exception of appealed claim 12, we think that a prima facie case
of obviousness has been established for the subject matter
defined by these claims. Appealed claim 12, which is separately
argued, requires control of the substrate temperature to within
the range of about 400EC to about 800EC. Sladek’s disclosure
that a family of metal oxides CVD reactions were successfully
achieved using vapor phase hydrolysis chemical vapor deposition
techniques at temperatures from 25 to 130EC, in our view, is
insufficient to provide a reasonable expectation that at the
higher temperatures claimed, stoichiometric double metal oxide
films would have been achieved. Thus, we reverse the examiner’s
rejection as it applies to dependent claim 12.
With respect to independent method claim 7, appellants argue
that the prior art fails to suggest structure strategically
positioned, and arranged to promote a polycondensation reaction
of a hydrolyzed precursor on a substrate. Apparently, appellants
are referring to the claim language defining a structure
positioned within a reaction chamber ?in the proximity of said
reaction zone, said structure being constructed and arranged to
promote a polycondensation reaction of said hydrolyzed precursor
on the substrate?. Based on Figure 1 of the application, this
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007