Appeal No. 1998-0038
Application No. 08/236,780
invention, each individual application may call for
a specific energy range in order to avoid initiating
a sputtering reaction that would damage the
substrate beneath the unwanted contaminant layer."
[Emphasis added]
Thus, it is respectfully submitted that the
Champetier patent does not disclose or suggest
sputtering a cryofilm off of a cryogenically cooled
substrate as is taught and claimed in the present
application, and specifically teaches away from
sputtering. The Examiner's position is in direct
opposition with the above quoted teachings of the
Champetier patent.
We disagree with the appellants' interpretation of
Champetier's disclosure at column 5, lines 44-49. In our
opinion, this disclosure does not teach an artisan to avoid
initiating a sputtering reaction of any kind, as the
appellants seem to believe. Instead, this disclosure teaches
the artisan to avoid initiating a level or degree of
sputtering reaction that would damage the substrate beneath
the unwanted contaminant layer. This last-mentioned
interpretation is consistent with patentee's repeatedly
expressed objective to remove contaminants while avoiding
damage to the underlying substrate (e.g., see the paragraph
bridging columns 2 and 3 as well as lines 57-61 in column 3).
Moreover, this objective of Champetier fully corresponds to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007