Appeal No. 1998-2342 Page 9
Application No. 08/505,739
the function disclosed in Appellants’ specification. The erosion function described by Tepman would
inherently result in maintenance of uniformity as claimed.
As recognized by Appellants, Sasaki describes a process similar to that of Tepman in which the
target and substrate are moved in relation to one another so the distance between the
target and substrate remain constant as the target erodes (Brief, pages 10 and 11). Appellants argue
that Sasaki does not accept that one might be better off changing target-to-substrate spacing according
to some other function (Brief, page 11). As explained above, claim 1 encompasses any erosion
function. Thus, claim 1 would encompass the function disclosed by Sasaki.
Appellants also argue that Sasaki would not tolerate changing the substrate-to-target spacing to
maintain distribution uniformity (Brief, page 11). The spacing would not have to be changed. It is
reasonable to believe that Sasaki’s spacing, similarly to Tepman’s spacing, would result in maintenance
of thickness uniformity within the levels required by claim 1.
We conclude that the Examiner has established a case of prima facie anticipation over Tepman
and a prima facie case of obviousness over either Tepman or Sasaki in view of Tanaka and Hurwitt
with respect to the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007