Appeal No. 2001-0929
Application No. 08/697,321
“are distinct but related.” See col. 3, ll. 21-22. While
Matossian teaches that the apparatus used in these processes are
“similar” (col. 3, ll. 30-33), the examiner has not pointed to any
teaching or showing in Matossian that these processes of ion
bombardment are so similar that one of ordinary skill in the plasma
processing art could modify one type of process with steps from
another type of process. Accordingly, we determine that the
examiner has not established any convincing motivation or reasoning
to support the proposed combination of references. See In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir.
1999). Furthermore, the examiner has not presented any convincing
evidence or reasoning why one of ordinary skill in the art would
modify the ion coating process desired by Gruen with the ion
implantation process of Chan.
Additionally, the examiner applies Chan to show implanting
with a pulsed D.C. voltage (Answer, page 6). However, Chan teaches
the use of two sources, the first a pulsed arc source to create the
plasma and the second source a D.C. voltage to accelerate and
implant the ions (col. 4, l. 27-col. 5, l. 5). The examiner has
failed to present any convincing evidence or reasoning why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have only used the second source of
Chan in the process of Gruen. See Dembiczak, supra.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007