Appeal No. 1998-1663
Application No. 08/508,408
The appellants argue as follows:
The above step [i.e., the sputtering step of appealed
claim 9] clearly recites that the titanium film is sputter
deposited and that the sputter deposited film is a metal
film. After the titanium film is deposited, the oxidizing
step is practiced. Clearly claim 9 recites that the step
of sputtering and the step of oxidizing are separate
steps. In its broadest reading the “sputtering and
oxidizing steps” of claim 9 are not conducted in one step.
[Request for rehearing, p. 2.]
The appellants then submit as follows:
Finley as read by the Board teaches sputtering to
deposit a titanium oxide film. Applicants’ claim 9 as
discussed above covers sputtering to deposit a titanium
film and thereafter, oxidizing the deposited film.
Based on the above, applicants respectfully submit
that Finley teaches depositing a metal oxide film; Khanna
also teaches depositing a metal oxide film. An artisan
combining Khanna and Finley would deposit a metal oxide
film. Applicants’ claims 9 and 10 on the other hand
recite that an amorphous titanium film, more particularly
a metal amorphous titanium film, is deposited, and
thereafter the film is oxidized. [Id. at pp.2-3.]
We cannot agree. As we stated in our original decision (page
6), appealed claim 9, unlike claim 31, does not recite that the
deposition of the film is operated below the “switch point.” Nor is
there any recitation in claim 9 that the deposition is conducted in
the “metallic mode” as described in the present specification.
Although the appellants urge that the recited oxidizing step is
practiced after the titanium film is deposited, appealed claim 9 does
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007