Ex Parte Haight et al - Page 3



                Appeal 2007-0108                                                                                 
                Application 10/698,884                                                                           

                S.A. Trushin et al., Femtosecond Dynamics and Vibrational Coherence in                           
                Gas-Phase Ultraviolet Photodecomposition of Cr(CO)6,102 Journal Phys.                            
                Chem. A 4129-37 (1998)                                                                           
                       Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method of depositing an                    
                element on a substrate by irradiating a donor compound that is suspended in                      
                a carrier gas with optical radiation.  The optical radiation has sufficient                      
                intensity to cause deposition of one or more of the elements of the                              
                compound onto the substrate through photochemical decomposition of its                           
                molecules.  Claim 23 on appeal requires that the optical radiation has a pulse                   
                width that is insufficient to cause thermal absorption of the deposited                          
                element that would thermally induce breakdown of the donor compound.                             
                       Appealed claims 1-6, 8-14, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                       
                § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Polanyi, taken alone, or in view of                          
                Morishige.  Claims 23, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                     
                being unpatentable over the stated combination of references further in view                     
                of Trushin.                                                                                      
                       We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by                          
                Appellants and the Examiner.  In so doing, we agree with Appellants that the                     
                Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness for the                           
                claimed subject matter.  Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s                         
                rejections.                                                                                      
                       We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 8-14, and                       
                20-22 over Polanyi, taken alone, or in view of Morishige.  We do not                             
                subscribe to the Examiner’s position that “for the claims as written, while                      
                                                       3                                                         




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007