Appeal No. 1998-1628
Application No. 08/384,597
mailed April 11, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper
No. 27, filed January 16, 1997) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 29,
filed June 4, 1997) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 5
through 7.
The examiner first rejects claim 5 over Suzuki, Ando, and
Ogata. Suzuki discloses an apparatus for forming a film on a
substrate which includes an evaporation source and an ion
source. Suzuki states (column 3, lines 37-41) that ions from
the ion source mix with the deposition layer at the interface
between the substrate and the deposition layer, forming a
continuously varying composition or mixed layer. Suzuki
discloses (column 1, lines 52-53, column 2, lines 13-14, and
column 3, lines 32-34) that the ion beam energy ranges from
10KeV to 100KeV, with specific examples of 30KeV and 40KeV
(see column 4, lines 57-58, column 5, lines 16-18 and 55-56,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007