Appeal No. 2001-0118
Application No. 09/013,927
and which uses a sputter chamber pressure far below those
disclosed by Barnes and claimed by the appellants (e.g., see
lines 37-41 in column 13 of Lubbers).
The relatively high pressures disclosed by Barnes (to
effect sputtering with high ionization) in comparison with the
relatively low pressure disclosed by Lubbers (to effect
sputtering without any significant ionization) compel a
determination that the examiner’s proposal to modify Barnes so
as to result in “traditional rf sputtering” (i.e., sputtering
without significant ionization) would result in use of a
sputter chamber pressure (e.g., the pressure of Lubbers) far
below those required by the independent claim on appeal.
Therefore, even assuming an artisan with ordinary skill would
have been motivated to modify Barnes in order to obtain
“traditional rf sputtering,” such a modification would result
in a method different from the appellants’ claimed method in
at least one respect (i.e., sputter chamber pressure).
For this reason alone, we cannot sustain the examiner’s
section 103 rejection of claim 2 over Barnes in view of
Jeffrey, Lubbers and Fritsche or his corresponding rejection
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007