Appeal No. 2001-1068
Application 09/063,196
OPINION
Except for claim 29, we will reverse the obviousness
rejections of all of the claims on appeal.
Turning first to the obviousness rejection of claim 29,
appellants argue (brief, pages 6 and 7; reply brief, page 2) that
Mizuno introduces a gas into a reactor chamber “to ‘passivate’
the tungsten film that builds up on the peripheral members” in
the chamber, whereas claim 29 “makes the film on the chamber
components ‘stable’ so that continued deposition of the volatile
compounds continues unchanged, thereby providing a predictable
and repeatable effect on the process,” and that Miyamoto adds
nothing to cure this deficiency in the teachings of Mizuno.
Appellants’ arguments to the contrary notwithstanding,
the disclosed invention (specification, pages 6 through 8, 10,
12, 19, 20 and 22) uses both “passivating” and “stabilizing” to
describe how the gas introduced into the chamber effects the
components in the chamber. For example, appellants state
(specification, page 6, lines 4 through 7) that “chamber
stabilization . . . or . . . passivation of internal reactor
surfaces, eliminates an uncontrolled source of Ti-containing
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007