Appeal No. 2000-0037
Application 08/627,631
sole carrier gas or in combination with other carrier gases. At
column 24, lines 35 through 42, Wang et al. disclose that:
by utilizing the process according to the present invention,
particularly in the apparatus disclosed in the above-
identified co-pending application, the operation at high
pressures (presently up to about 50 Torr) allows the plasma
to be confined at the top of the substrate, thus making it
less likely to contaminate the sides of the chamber and the
surfaces on which deposits are not desired.
Thus, it appears that Wang et al. describes, not only the method
as claimed in claim 1, for example, but also appellants' alleged
advantage, that is, a cleaner reactor.
Additionally, the only films prepared by a prior art process
actually disclosed and compared to appellants' films are the BPSG
films. The scope of appellants' claims is not limited to any
particular process let alone BPSG films. While we would not
presume to suggest to appellants how to proceed under §1.196(b)
in response to this new ground of rejection, under these
circumstances it appears that appellants' invention would lend
itself to being claimed using the so-called Jepson claim format
in which the prior art process which appellants seek to improve
by using helium is specifically set forth in detail in the
preamble of the claim and wherein the improvement comprises using
helium in place of nitrogen in whole or in part.
SUMMARY
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007