Appeal No. 1998-2649
Application No. 08/616,990
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer
for a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed
by the appellant and by the examiner concerning the above-
noted rejections.
OPINION
We cannot sustain these rejections for the reasons which
follow.
On page 7 of the answer, the examiner expresses his
obviousness conclusion in the following manner:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to have placed a substrate on a holder
opposite another substrate on a holder between
targets supplied with sputtering power as taught by
Canon and to have provided an apparatus with a
cylindrical target, rf coil, biased substrate for
depositing in high aspect ratio holes of a
semiconductor as taught by Barnes et al. because it
is desired to deposit films over a large area and in
aspect ratio holes.
We share the appellant's basic position that the applied prior
art contains no teaching or suggestion for combining the
apparatus of Canon with an RF coil of the type taught by
Barnes in order to thereby result in an apparatus and a method
of the type defined by the independent claims on appeal.
Concerning this matter, page 10 of the answer sets forth the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007