Appeal No. 1997-3420
Application No. 08/371,227
view render the subject matter of claim 4 obvious. The
primary reference is Braeuer, which is directed to the same
technology as the appellants’ invention. While this reference
has some commonality of structure with the appellants’ claimed
invention, the examiner admits that it fails to disclose or
teach (1) insulating the center mask from the target and (2)
applying an anodic potential to the center mask during
sputtering (Answer, pages 5 and 6).
It is the examiner’s position that it would have been
obvious to insulate the center mask from the target in Braeuer
because Bourez and Zejda disclose such a feature. From our
perspective, however, this conclusion is undermined by the
fact that the Bourez system is quite different from that of
Braeuer because in Bourez the masks are not in contact with
the substrate, and in Zejda the element that the examiner
specifies as comprising insulation is not so designated, nor
can it be established from the drawing that such is the case.
We therefore fail to discern in these references any teaching
or suggestion which would have motivated one of ordinary skill
in the art to modify the Braeuer sputtering apparatus in such
a fashion as to meet this requirement of claim 4. Moreover,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007