Appeal No. 1998-1669
Application No. 08/508,563
interpretation of appealed claim 1, it is not clear to us why
an atmosphere in which only argon is
introduced but oxygen is supplied from the target, as
described in JP ‘746, cannot be considered as an “atmosphere
with a controlled partial pressure of oxygen.” Under these
circumstances, it is our view that one skilled in the relevant
art would not be able to ascertain the scope of recitation
(i).
As to recitation (ii), we note that the specification
also lacks definitions for the phrases “interrupting said
first step” and “performing discharge.” The examiner has
interpreted the phrase “interrupting said first step” of the
recited second step to encompass sputtering at an oxygen
partial pressure which is different from the “controlled
partial pressure of oxygen” of the recited first step.
(Examiner’s answer, page 5.) In addition, the examiner has
interpreted “performing discharge” as continuing the
sputtering process at a condition which is different from that
of the first step. In this regard, we note that the term
“discharge” is used in the specification and the prior art in
the context of sputtering. (Specification, pages 1-2; Ohno,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007