Appeal No. 95-2413
Application 07/936,865
"non-planar" (independent claim 29), or "dish-shaped"
(dependent claims 42 and 60) targets with a rotatable magnet
behind the target.
In the Final Rejection (Paper No. 24), the examiner
inadvertently omitted the references to Elmgren, Wegmann, and
Sawada showing non-planar targets, which had been applied in
the previous Office action (Paper No. 21). The omitted
references were applied in the Examiner's Answer and the
examiner designated the rejection as a new ground of
rejection. Appellants object to the new grounds of rejection;
however, such procedural matters are not within the Board's
jurisdiction. Moreover, the omission in the Final Rejection
does appear to be an obvious error since otherwise there would
be no references to show the feature of a non-planar target.
We consider the rejection on the merits.
The examiner states that "[t]he secondary references show
that other shapes of the targets such as concave and convex
are well-known in sputtering deposition" (Paper No. 21,
page 3). The examiner further states that "Wegmann in
figure 2 clearly shows the concave target having rotating
magnets 32 such that uniform erosion can be generated from the
- 21 -
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007