Appeal No. 2000-0037
Application 08/627,631
OPINION
After a thorough review of the claims before us
considered in light of appellants' disclosure, the prior art of
record in the prosecution history and the respective positions of
both the appellants and the examiner, we conclude that
considerable speculation as to the meaning of the claimed method
and the scope of the claims was engaged in by both the appellants
and the examiner. Accordingly, we take the unusual step of
summarily reversing the examiner's rejection and entering the
following new ground of rejection, because the rejection was
improperly founded on speculation and assumptions by both the
appellants and the examiner. Compare In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,
134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962).
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b), we
enter the following new ground of rejection. Claims 1 through 36
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 1 is directed to a method for forming a dielectric
film on a substrate. According to the language recited in the
preamble of claim 1, the claimed method "produces less
contamination in a substrate processing system" than would be
formed "under substantially identical processing conditions" but
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007