Appeal No. 95-2413
Application 07/936,865
step-coverage" (RBr9). The primary references, not Wegmann,
are relied on to teach providing an erosion profile.
Sawada
Appellants argue that Sawada is directed to preventing
warping of the target (RBr6). We agree. Figures 2 and 3 show
a target in which warping has occurred. Sawada is not
directed to a non-planar target. Therefore, Sawada cannot
suggest a non-planar target. Accordingly, the rejection of
claims 13-18, 22, 29, 30, 33-35, 42-44, and 60 over either
Suzuki or Sato '374 or Sato '375 in view of Sawada is
reversed.
Elmgren
Appellants argue that Elmgren discloses a diode
sputtering apparatus having a concave target and that in diode
sputtering no magnets are used (RBr6-7). Appellants argue
that the focussing effect in Elmgren is quite dubious
(RBr6-7). The examiner has not pointed to any motivation,
either in the references or in the knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the art, for combining the rotating magnet
magnetron sputtering device of the primary references with the
concave target of Elmgren. It appears that the motivation for
- 27 -
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007