Appeal No. 2000-1163
Application 08/649,262
on reactor walls . . . [which] cannot be removed with an NF3 plasma . . . [t]hus . . . [requiring]
periodic opening of the reactor and the cleaning of the reactor walls with water” (col. 2, lines 1-9;
emphasis supplied). This description is further confirmed at col. 2, lines 20-24.
The cited passage reads in second pertinent part, “[i]n the course of TiCl4+ NH3
processes, substances such as TiNxCly compounds form blue and dark purple-blue films on
certain internal reactor components . . . [which] are removable with NF3 plasma. The NF3
plasma cleaning . . . includes the formation of an NF3 plasma, with the reactor remaining sealed
. . . [and] dissolves the blue and dark blue deposits of TiNxCly and the gold TiN” (col. 2, lines 10-
19; emphasis supplied).
The only step in the prior art method as acknowledged by Eichman that involves a
treatment gas in a cleaning process is the treatment with NF3 plasma which dissolves the
“deposits of TiNxCly and the gold TiN,” with respect to which the reactor remains sealed. There
is no disclosure in the acknowledged method that would have provided one of ordinary skill in
this art with the teaching or inference that the reactor is subsequently opened to remove the
treatment product, that is, the NF3 plasma dissolved “blue and dark blue deposits of TiNxCly and
the gold TiN,” as the only reason given to open the reactor periodically is the cleaning thereof to
remove the TiCl4.NH3 adduct formed from the reactant gases.
Thus, in the absence in the record of evidence that knowledge possessed by one of
ordinary skill in this art would have recognized that the reactor would have been opened to
remove the NF3 plasma dissolved deposits of TiNxCly and TiN, and thus would have been in
possession of the claimed invention, there is no basis in fact to support a prima facie case of
anticipation, see generally, In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir.
1995), and cases cited therein (a reference anticipates the claimed method if the step that is not
disclosed therein “is within the knowledge of the skilled artisan.”), or of obviousness. See
generally, B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Sys. Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582, 37 USPQ2d
1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“When obviousness is based on a particular prior art reference,
there must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that reference.
[Citation omitted.] This suggestion or motivation need not be expressly stated. [Citation
omitted.]”).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007