Appeal No. 1998-2342 Page 8
Application No. 08/505,739
page 17 and 18). Advancing the substrate toward the target to compensate for erosion as done by
Tepman would result in much less deviation than in the example in the specification in which the target
and substrate are kept stationary. Therefore, it is
reasonable to believe that uniformity is inherently maintained to within +/- 5 percent using the distance
variation technique of Tepman. Where, as here, the result is a necessary consequence of what was
deliberately intended, it is of no import that Tepman did not discuss the particular result claimed.
Mehl/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1366, 52 USPQ2d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir.
1999). Furthermore, we note that claim 1 reasonably encompasses deviations in thickness somewhat
above +/- 5 percent as discussed above with respect to claim interpretation.
With regard to the rejection under § 103, Appellants argue that the function of erosion
disclosed in the specification for determining the spacing that will maintain thickness uniformity is not
the same function required by Tepman to maintain deposition rate (Brief, page 12). The difference, if
there is one is irrelevant. It is the subject matter of the claims which is at issue not what is disclosed in
the specification. Claim 1 is not limited to any particular function.
Appellants also argue that Tepman teaches against the derivation and use of Appellants’
spacing control function since to do so would defeat the purpose of Tepman’s invention and would not
achieve the result that Tepman seeks to achieve (Brief, page 12). Tepman need not teach the use of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007