Appeal No. 2001-0929 Application No. 08/697,321 source that is a R.F. source resulting in a D.C. self bias or alternatively a D.C. source may equivalently be used (Answer, page 13). We incorporate our remarks about Chan from our discussion above, namely that Chan teaches a separate source for generation of the plasma as well as a source for ion acceleration and implantation while the claims on appeal require the D.C. voltage pulses to create a plasma, accelerate and implant the ions. We again note that the examiner has not presented any convincing evidence or reasoning to support the proposed combination of Nakayama with Chan. Appellant correctly argues that Kruger does not teach where its plasma “comes from” and thus there is no convincing evidence or reasoning why the D.C. source of Kruger would have been used in the process of Nakayama to produce the requirements of the claimed process, namely create a plasma and accelerate and implant the ions (Brief, page 15). Kruger discloses an “activated N2 plasma” but fails to teach how this plasma was produced (see col. 6, ll. 32- 43). Furthermore, we agree with appellant that Kruger does not describe or suggest pulsed ion implantation (R.F. or D.C.)(Brief, page 15). The examiner merely states that these failures of Kruger “does not negate the demonstrated equivalence” but provides no 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007