Appeal No. 95-2413
Application 07/936,865
Appellants argue (Br9): "There is nothing in the
teachings of this patent [Sato '374] which suggests or makes
obvious how to adapt the formula to extend beyond planar
target designs. Likewise, the teachings of the Suzuki,
et al., patent are limited to planar targets and it would not
have been obvious how [to] extend the teachings of the patent
to non-planar targets." Obviousness is determined through the
eyes of one of ordinary skill in the art, not just from the
express teachings of the references. One skilled in the art
would have known that Suzuki's teaching that the time of
exposure of the target should be constant would apply equally
to a non-planar target and would have been motivated to apply
such teaching to Wegmann's teaching of non-planar targets. As
discussed, supra, the claims are not interpreted to require a
perfect correspondence between the intended erosion pattern
and the actual erosion pattern.
Appellants argue that Wegmann "does not teach the
importance of obtaining any particular erosion profile of
either of the sputter targets, or how the erosion profiles are
related to achieving the primary goals of film uniformity and
- 26 -
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007