Appeal No. 96-1179
Application 08/190,622
with the examiner that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to move the collimator after the
first deposition to a location that does not influence the
sputtered atoms during the second deposition step. We also
agree with the examiner that it also would have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ drive means of
the type disclosed in the secondary references to effect
moving the collimator of Talieh after the first deposition
step. As acknowledged by appellant at page 12 of the
principal brief, the level of skill in this art is relatively
high, i.e., "[p]rocess engineers can have degrees ranging from
a bachelor's degree to doctoral degrees [and] process
technicians tend to have some technical background." In our
view, such highly skilled artisans would have found it obvious
to utilize drive means of the type disclosed by the secondary
references to render the collimator of Talieh movable and,
thereby, obtain the art-recognized benefit of a non-collimated
second deposition step. Appellant advances no objective
evidence or compelling reasoning which establishes that the
drive means of the secondary references are incapable of
effectively moving a collimator in a deposition chamber.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007