Appeal No. 2001-0118
Application No. 09/013,927
traditional rf sputtering will not achieve a proper
ionization level to fill high aspect ratio holes
(Barnes in fact states this premise), but Appellant
has ignored the fact that traditional rf sputtering
will ionize, just not enough to fill the holes. If
there are no holes to fill, then there is no need
for further ionization. Therefore, traditional rf
sputtering onto a plain substrate will involve
ionization by power applied solely to the target and
meet the limitations of claim 2. In traditional rf
sputtering, the coil of Barnes would be merely
extra.
We here clarify that our assessment of the section 103
rejections advanced by the examiner on this appeal does not
include consideration of the first two theories discussed
above. The examiner has made it clear in his answer that he
no longer relies upon these theories. Under these
circumstances, it is appropriate to confine our assessment of
the rejections to the “traditional rf sputtering” theory since
this is the only theory now proffered by the examiner as
supporting his conclusion that the here claimed “applying”
step would have been obvious.
OPINION
On the record of this appeal, it is clear that the
examiner’s section 103 rejections cannot be sustained.
The fundamental position expressed by the examiner in his
answer is that it would have been obvious to modify Barnes by
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007