Appeal No. 1998-2308
Application No. 08/379,868
Claims 10 through 12 and 20 through 23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kügler in view of Scobey, as
applied to claims 1 through 9 and 15 through 19, and further in view
of Quazi and Scherer.
The examiner appears to admit that neither Kügler nor Scobey
describes a sputtering step which comprises applying to the target a
“generally square wave voltage having a positive portion which is
less than fifty percent of a cycle and a negative portion which is
more than fifty percent of a cycle and provides a negative DC
component” as recited in appealed claim 10 or “a generally square
wave voltage such that the target has a negative voltage relative to
the electrode for more than half a cycle and a positive voltage
relative to the electrode for less than half a cycle” as recited in
appealed claim 20. (Examiner’s answer, page 10.) To remedy this
additional difference, the examiner relies on Quazi and Scherer.
(Id. at pages 10-11.) The examiner’s conclusion is stated as
follows:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to have applied waveform having a positive portion
which is less than fifty percent of a cycle and a negative
portion which is more than fifty percent of a cycle and
provides a negative dc component as taught by Quazi and
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007