Appeal No. 2000-1608
Application 08/953,998
a second step of dividing a range of said vertical
angle 2 into sections of an equal interval, counting a
number of the ejected particles for every section of said
vertical angle 2, and calculating a vertical distribution
function by interpolating the counted numbers of the ejected
particles as a function of said vertical angle 2,
a third step of determining values of said vertical
angle 2 likely to emerge in a random process of a particle
ejection from said target using said vertical distribution
function as a criterion to judge whether the particle
ejection at said vertical angle 2 is to be accepted as
likely to occur or to be rejected as unlikely to occur,
a fourth step of determining values of said horizontal
angle N likely to emerge in a random process of a particle
ejection from said target, and
a fifth step of calculating tracks of sputtered
particles in a sputtering arrangement using the values of
said vertical angles and said horizontal angles determined
by the third step and the fourth step in accordance with the
Monte Carlo method.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art: 2
Yamada et al. (Yamada), A Sputter Equipment Simulation
System Including Molecular Dynamical Target Atom Scattering
Model, IEEE Proc. of Int'l Elec. Devices Mtg., Washington,
DC, Dec. 10-13, 1995, pp. 93-96 (numbered as 4.5.1-4.5.4 in
the reprint copy).
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to nonstatutory subject matter as an algorithm.
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out
2 In the examiner's answer, the Examiner cites supplemental
prior art in response to Appellant's arguments. This prior art
is not part of the art rejection. We find it unnecessary to rely
on this supplemental prior art in any way; thus, it will not be
listed or discussed.
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007