Appeal No. 1998-2342 Page 6
Application No. 08/505,739
Tanaka and Hurwitt. We agree with the Appellants that Tanaka and Hurwitt are not relevant to our
consideration of the issues as these two references were added to the rejection to address the
limitations found in dependent claims which stand or fall with claims 1, 14, and 20 (Brief, page 14).
We also agree with the Appellants’ characterization of the rejection under §103 as treating Tepman and
Sasaki as two primary references and not as one in view of the other (Brief, page 11). Therefore, we
will first address the issues as they apply to both anticipation and obviousness of claim 1 over Tepman
and then address the issues as they apply to the obviousness of claim 1 over Sasaki. Then we will
progress to claims 14 and 20.
Claim 1
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed
invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429,
1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As recognized by Appellants, Tepman compensates for target erosion by
maintaining a consistent distance between the substrate wafer and the target and thus maintains a
consistent and predictable coating thickness from substrate wafer to substrate wafer over the useful life
of the target (Brief, page 7, lines 16-19 citing Tepman, col. 3, lines 44-53). Appellants acknowledge
that Tepman progressively reduces target-to-substrate spacing as a function of target erosion as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007