Appeal No. 1998-1216
Application 08/356,194
vapor deposition on the first film. In contrast, the admitted
prior art applies the first (i.e., the Ti) film by sputtering
and then a second (i.e., the TiON) film according to a
chemical vapor deposition process. With respect to each of
the rejections before us, it is the examiner's position that
it would have been obvious for one
skilled in the art at the time the
invention was made to have
substituted Hirose et al's
(5,203,959) ECR-CVD thin film
depositing method for the sputtering
thin film method of the [admitted]
prior art because of the advantages
associated with its use as evidenced
above, i.e. higher through put
(Answer, page 6).
As for the claim requirement of successively forming the
second film "without exposing the first film to air," the
examiner argues that "Hirose . . . teaches performing the
ECR/CVD in a vacuum" and "this clearly suggests to one skilled
in the art that the deposition process is performed with [sic,
without] 'exposure' to air" (Answer, page 12).
The examiner's position is not well taken. As
correctly argued by the appellant, the Hirose disclosure is
limited to forming only a single film by chemical vapor
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007