Appeal No. 2006-2922 Page 8
Application No. 10/012,677
We consider first the examiner’s rejection of claims 16-18 and 20-22
as being unpatentable over the teachings of Lee in view of Vossen, and
further in view of Fujisada, Wolf-1, and Wolf-2. Since appellants’ arguments
with respect to this rejection have treated these claims as a single group
which stand or fall together, we will consider independent claim 16 as the
representative claim for this rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii)
(2004).
Appellants argue that the combination of prior art cited by the
examiner fails to teach or suggest each and every element in representative
claim 16. Specifically, appellants assert that the combination proffered by
the examiner has no teaching of a two-source evaporative system that
utilizes aluminum oxide and silicon monoxide [brief, page 10]. Appellants
further assert that the recited limitation of “forming the mixture and the
depositing being conducted without flowing O2 into the chamber” is not
disclosed by the prior art [brief, pages 11 and 12]. Appellants also assert
that the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest controlling the amount
of silicon present by controlling the evaporation rate of silicon monoxide
[brief, page 12]. Appellants argue that the examiner has improperly
formulated the rejection by impermissibly relying upon hindsight [brief, page
11].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007