Ex Parte YAMADA - Page 11




          Appeal No. 2000-1608                                                         
          Application 08/953,998                                                       

          calculating tracks of sputtered particles using the values                   
          determined from the third and fourth steps (fifth step).                     
               While Yamada discloses a continuous vertical distribution               
          function in Fig. 5, there is no description that it was obtained             
          using the method in the second step of claim 1 ("dividing a                  
          range ...").  There is no description of using the vertical                  
          distribution function to determine values of the vertical angle 2            
          as recited in the third step.  It is clear that the ejection                 
          angles used in the MC method in Yamada are calculated using MD               
          techniques (p. 4.5.2), which the Examiner appears to recognize               
          (EA11), not from the vertical distribution function using uniform            
          random numbers.  Further, there is no description of determining             
          the value of a horizontal angle N likely to emerge in a random               
          process of a particle ejection as recited in the fourth step.                
          Again, it is clear that the ejection angles used in the MC method            
          are calculated using MD techniques and are not based on the                  
          assumption that the values of the horizontal angle N emerge in an            
          equal probability which can be designated by uniform random                  
          numbers.  Because Yamada does not disclose the second, third, or             
          fourth steps, it manifestly does not disclose the fifth step                 
          which relies on the third and fourth steps.  Accordingly, the                
          Examiner's finding of anticipation is clearly erroneous.  The                
          rejection of claims 1-6 under § 102(a) is reversed.                          


                                        - 11 -                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007