Appeal No. 2000-1608
Application 08/953,998
has not been attempted by the Examiner even though claim 1 is not
that complicated. Appellant argues that the Examiner has used
language and made findings that are more appropriate to an
obviousness rejection (Br7). In response, the Examiner has spent
considerable time and effort discussing the arguments in
Appellant's brief. General discussions of Monte Carlo techniques
and what was known in the art are of no help to us in addressing
the specifics of claim 1. Therefore, we make our own findings
regarding the anticipation rejection over Yamada.
We find that Yamada is essentially directed to the admitted
prior art of Appellant's Fig. 1, wherein ejection angle
distribution values calculated using MD techniques are used to
calculate atom trajectories using the MC method. Yamada does not
teach the second, third, fourth, and fifth steps of claim 1.
The characteristic feature of Appellant's invention is
calculating (in a particular way) a continuous vertical
distribution function from a calculated direction-dependent
distribution of ejected particles (second step). Then the
distribution function is used to determine a value of the
vertical angle 2 likely to emerge in a random process of a
particle ejection (third step) and a value of a horizontal
angle N likely to emerge in a random process of a particle
ejection is determined (fourth step). Last is the step of
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007