Appeal No. 1998-1628
Application No. 08/384,597
and column 6, lines 43-44), which fall outside the claimed
range of 500eV to 8KeV. Further, Suzuki makes no mention of
the ratio of evaporation atoms to ions reaching the substrate.
The examiner maintains (Final Rejection, pages 2-3, and
Answer, pages 4-6) that both the claimed ion energy of 500eV
to 8KeV and the claimed ratio of 10 to 1000 for evaporation
atoms to ions are merely statements of intended use of the
apparatus, and, therefore, are not given patentable weight.
Appellants, on the other hand, assert (Brief, page 8) that the
claimed voltage range is not an intended use, but rather
"quantifies a structural characteristic of an element of the
apparatus, i.e., the ion source." Similarly, appellants
assert (Brief, page 10) that the claimed ratio of evaporation
atoms to ions is not an intended use, but rather, "constitutes
structural definition of the ion and evaporation sources as
elements of the apparatus."
We agree with appellants. Both the voltage range and the
ratio are positively recited limitations in the claims and at
least partially define the positioning and amounts of the ion
and evaporation sources. Thus, the two ranges amount to
structural limitations which cannot be ignored.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007