Appeal No. 2000-1041
Application No. 08/871,705
Fujita (Answer, page 3).2 We reverse this rejection for reasons
stated in the Brief and the reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Ovshinsky teaches X-ray dispersive and
reflective structures (Answer, page 3). The examiner recognizes
that Ovshinsky fails to disclose or suggest many limitations of the
claimed subject matter (see the listing on page 5 of the Answer).3
Accordingly, the examiner applies Keem for the teachings of
thickness, temperatures, and rf and dc magnetron sputtering methods
(Answer, page 9).4
2The examiner incorrectly lists cancelled claim 18 in the
statement of the rejection on page 3 of the Answer.
3Although the examiner lists each difference between
Ovshinsky and the claims as “Ovshinsky et al. do not teach...,”
the examiner appears to mistakenly list one limitation where
Ovshinsky et al. “do teach” the sputtering at room temperature.
Since the examiner applies Keem (Answer, page 7) and Nakamori
(Answer, page 8) as evidence of sputtering at room temperature,
we assume the examiner meant Ovshinsky does not teach sputtering
at room temperature. We do note that Ovshinsky teaches
depositing hafnium and silicon by magnetron sputtering at room
temperature (col. 25, ll. 1-2 and 34-36). However, this
limitation does not affect our decision in this appeal and is
therefore moot.
4A discussion of Nakamori and Fujita is unnecessary to this
decision as the examiner only applies these references for their
teachings of high frequency power (Answer, page 9). Accordingly,
these references do not remedy the deficiencies discussed infra.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007