Appeal No. 1997-3172
Application 08/045,989
sputtering source such as that in appellants’ figure 27A were
used in Flint’s apparatus, it does not appear that Flint’s
shields around the outside of the sputtering source would
shield the substrate in front of the sputtering source from
oblique deposition emanating from the central portion of the
target.2
The examiner argues that “figure 2 of Flint also
indicates that oblique deposition is prevented by the shield
since only perpendicular particles shown by the arrows are
deposited onto the substrate 26” (answer, page 7). Flint,
however, provides no teaching that the arrows represent
particle travel which is perpendicular to the substrate, but,
rather, appears to merely indicate that the direction of
travel is from the sputtering sources toward the substrate.
The examiner’s interpretation of the reference, in this
regard, is based purely on hindsight from appellants’
disclosure, which is improper. See W.L. Gore & Associates v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed.
2 Appellants use shield extension 2231 to provide such
shielding (page 56, lines 21-23; figures 23 and 27A).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007