Appeal No. 1998-0039
Application No. 08/372,701
high pressure could be used in a first stage as long as the
second stage pressure complemented the stress formed in the
first stage to result in a zero stress film (Answer, pages 5-
6).
Appellant argues that the admitted prior art discloses an
arcing problem but the proposed prior art solutions to that
problem focus on modifications to the equipment of the
sputtering chamber rather than on process changes (Brief, page
6). Appellant further argues that none of the secondary
references mentions the problem of arcing or discloses any
shield for the substrate (Brief, pages 6-9). Appellant
specifically argues that JP ‘672 and JP ‘961 both teach the
opposite process as recited in the claims on appeal, namely
the application of low pressure followed by high pressure
instead of the claimed regime of high pressure followed by low
pressure (Brief, pages 6-7).
In any review of the examiner’s obviousness analysis, we
must first construe the claims to define the scope and meaning
of any contested limitations. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116
F.3d 1454, 1460 n.3, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1035 n.3 (Fed. Cir.
1997). We must apply to the language of the claims “the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007