Appeal No. 2001-0929
Application No. 08/697,321
source that is a R.F. source resulting in a D.C. self bias or
alternatively a D.C. source may equivalently be used (Answer, page
13).
We incorporate our remarks about Chan from our discussion
above, namely that Chan teaches a separate source for generation of
the plasma as well as a source for ion acceleration and
implantation while the claims on appeal require the D.C. voltage
pulses to create a plasma, accelerate and implant the ions. We
again note that the examiner has not presented any convincing
evidence or reasoning to support the proposed combination of
Nakayama with Chan.
Appellant correctly argues that Kruger does not teach where
its plasma “comes from” and thus there is no convincing evidence or
reasoning why the D.C. source of Kruger would have been used in the
process of Nakayama to produce the requirements of the claimed
process, namely create a plasma and accelerate and implant the ions
(Brief, page 15). Kruger discloses an “activated N2 plasma” but
fails to teach how this plasma was produced (see col. 6, ll. 32-
43). Furthermore, we agree with appellant that Kruger does not
describe or suggest pulsed ion implantation (R.F. or D.C.)(Brief,
page 15). The examiner merely states that these failures of Kruger
“does not negate the demonstrated equivalence” but provides no
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007