Appeal No. 1998-1669
Application No. 08/508,563
claim when it is read in light of the accompanying
specification. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s
rejections of claims 1 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the applied prior art on procedural grounds2
and, pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b) (1997),
enter a new ground of rejection under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112. The reasons for our determination follow.
JP ‘746 teaches:
To solve the above-described problems, according
to the method of manufacturing oxide thin films in
accordance with the present invention, a period in
which only an inert gas, such as an argon gas, is
introduced, and a period in which only an oxygen gas
is introduced are provided alternately and
continuously, and an oxide thin film is manufactured
in only the period in which only an inert gas, such
as an argon gas, is introduced. [Pages 3-4.]
The examiner takes the position that JP ‘746 teaches
sputtering an ITO film “in an atmosphere with a controlled
partial pressure of oxygen” as recited in appealed claim 1.
Specifically, the examiner points out that JP ‘746 teaches the
introduction of argon and the introduction of oxygen
alternately such that residual oxygen would be present during
2We emphasize that this reversal is a technical reversal
rather than one based on the merits.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007