Appeal No. 2001-1068
Application 09/063,196
implicitly show motivation . . . .” Accordingly, the obviousness
rejection of claims 1 through 14, 24, 25, 27 and 28 is reversed
because the additionally cited references do not cure the noted
shortcoming in the teachings and suggestions of Mizuno and
Miyamoto.
The obviousness rejection of claim 30 is reversed
because the applied references neither teach nor would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art “the simultaneous
stabilization of the chamber and passivation of a substrate
within the chamber” (brief, page 10).
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claim 15,
we agree with the examiner (answer, page 10) that Eichman
discloses a plasma CVD process in which titanium tetrachloride is
used in conjunction with ammonia (Abstract; column 1, lines 46
through 50; column 3, lines 47 through 66), that Foster teaches
“the use of an inert gas mixture into the reactor . . . ,” and
that Albrecht teaches “a cleaning process used to clean the
reactor chamber of a CVD reactor . . . .” Notwithstanding our
agreement with the examiner, we nevertheless agree with the
appellants’ arguments (brief, page 12; reply brief, pages 2
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007