Appeal No. 1997-3172
Application 08/045,989
shield is disclosed by Flint (answer, page 4). In the
rejection over Hedgcoth in view of the secondary references,
the examiner relies upon Flint for a disclosure of appellants’
shield (answer, page 6). That is, the examiner’s rejection
actually is over Hedgcoth in view of Flint and the other
secondary references. Thus, with respect to the issue of
whether appellants’ shield is disclosed or suggested by the
applied prior art, we need to discuss only Flint.
Flint states (col. 6, lines 50-54) that “[s]putter
shields 53 are installed within the process chamber 12 above
and below the sputtering sources 48 to collect sputtered
particles in order to reduce particulate contamination of
adjacent processing stations.” These shields are shown in
Flint’s figure 2.
The examiner argues that Flint discloses “shielding means
53 having flanges for shielding the substrate from oblique
deposition from the target” (answer, page 4). This argument
does not appear to be supported by the reference. As
indicated by the above excerpt from Flint, the reference does
not disclose that the shields shield the substrate from
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007