Appeal No. 2003-0642
Application No. 09/382,584
specification provides support for the rejected claim language,
but the examiner has not elaborated on why the referenced
portions of the specification fail to provide descriptive support
for the claim language. In our view, the specification provides
ample support for the claimed concept of time-modulating the
voltage during the induction of plasma.
We will also not sustain the examiner's rejection of the
appealed claims under § 103 over the collective teachings of
Nulty and Hashemi. In essence, we find that the arguments
presented by appellants in their principal and reply briefs have
not been adequately refuted by the examiner. For instance, the
examiner has pointed to no disclosure in either reference of
changing the operating parameters of the reaction chamber such
that deposition occurs at a first position in an opening while
etching continuously occurs at a second position of the opening.
As for the examiner's reliance on Hashemi's disclosure at
column 2, lines 52-64, we concur with appellants that "Hashemi is
based on applying the same high voltage to different materials,
which react differently with high energy plasmas" (page 12 of
principal brief, last paragraph). Indeed, Hashemi discloses that
the same cathode DC biases may be used to deposit hydrogenated
carbon films selectively on layers of aluminum (paragraph
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007