Appeal No. 1997-3172
Application 08/045,989
Hedgcoth 4,894,133 Jan. 16,
1990
Yazawa 4,939,046 Jul. 3,
1990
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6, 7 and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Flint or Hedgcoth, in view of
Welty, Bloomquist and Yazawa.1
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, we reverse these rejections.
Both of appellants’ independent claims, i.e., claims 1
and 15, require “a shield for shielding the substrates from
obliquely incident deposition from the targets, the shield
including flanges extending from the cathodes and projecting
toward the substrates.” This is the only limitation argued by
appellants in their briefs. The examiner argues that such a
1 Rejections over Leybold, Welty ‘708, Arita, Nagao,
Hughes and Clarke are withdrawn in the examiner’s answer
(pages 3-4).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007