Appeal No. 1998-1068
Application No. 08/472,833
As stated above, appellant’s claims are directed to a method for forming a thin film. The
claimed method involves forming an ablation plume in a first container that extends into a
second container to thereby deposit material from the plume onto a substrate. In contrast, Behn
discloses a method where a substrate is transported from a vapor deposition chamber to a glow
discharge chamber. Behn fails to describe, let alone mention, a method where the vapor deposition
material is transported from a first chamber to a second chamber such that the deposition material is
thereby deposited onto the substrate in the second chamber. Indeed, Behn arranges for the evacuation
of residual vaporized metal such that the deposition metal does not extend into and deposit upon a
substrate located in a second chamber. (Behn, col. 3, lines 53-68). Accordingly, while Behn
transports a substrate from one container to another, Behn fails to suggest appellant’s claimed transfer
of a deposition material from one container to another.
Schultz, like Behn, fails to describe or suggest a method where a deposition material is
transported from one container to another. Failing to describe the transfer of a deposition material from
a first container to a second container, Behn, alone or in combination with Schultz, would not have
rendered appellant’s claimed invention obvious to one skilled in the art.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007