Appeal No. 1998-0036 Page 10
Application No. 08/431,203
has not been met on the present record, we reverse the rejection of claim 14 over Swisher, Lindsay,
Sartor and Ho.
The Examiner also rejects the apparatus of claim 14 over Swisher in view of Meckel.
However, we agree with Appellants that the combination of Swisher and Meckel would not have led
one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the apparatus defined in claim 14. Swisher describes an
apparatus containing a sputtering station 15. The sputtering station does not contain a chill drum and
thus cannot be interpreted as being a “chill drum section” as recited in claim 14. Meckel describes a
sputtering apparatus which includes chill rolls 35 on opposite sides of sputtering cathodes 40a-c (Fig.
3). Were one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Meckel with those of
Swisher, the result would have been a sputter cathode with chill rolls on either side upstream and
downstream of the sputtering cathode. A chill drum section wherein the film passes directly between
the cathode and chill drum so that the film is in contact with the drum during sputtering would not have
been the result. Therefore, the combination of Swisher and Meckel would not have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art the claimed apparatus.
We conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the apparatus of claim 14.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007