Appeal No. 1997-0858
Application No. 08/323,065
Specifically, it is the examiner's conclusion that it would
have been obvious to provide the Harada process with a
pressure differential between
the substrate region and the evaporation source region in view
of
DeLozanne's teaching. Central to the examiner's rejection,
however, is the implicit proposition that the ordinarily
skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use the
pressure differ-ential concept taught by DeLozanne but not the
specific pressures taught by DeLozanne since these pressures
do not correspond to those here claimed. Instead, the
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for the
artisan in applying DeLozanne's pressure differential concept
to Harada's process to employ as a background pressure (such
as the pressure in the evaporation source region) the specific
pressure taught by Wang. As for the appellant's claimed
pressure in the substrate region, it is significant that none
of the here applied references explicitly teach a substrate
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007