Appeal No. 97-3530
Application No. 08/418,122
find no connection between the teaching of Wolf and the
temperatures required by the instant claims when viewed in
light of the sputtering temperature disclosed by Armstrong.
Further, with regard to the claimed controlled rate of
aluminum deposition, as indicated by appellants, at page 10 of
the principal brief, Armstrong lowers the deposition rate at
the same time as heating begins which is contrary to the
instant claimed invention which lowers the deposition rate
after the device has been brought up to the desired
temperature. Thus, Armstrong, again, fails to teach or
suggest a specific claim limitation, a deficiency which is not
remedied by the addition of the combination of the admitted
prior art and Wolf.
We now turn to the rejection of the claims based on
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 11 through 19 of
U.S. Patent No. 5,108,951 and the provisional rejection of the
claims based on obviousness-type double patenting over claims
19 and 28 of copending application Serial No. 08/418,257.
We remand the case to the examiner for clarification of
the rejections.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007