Appeal No. 2001-0929
Application No. 08/697,321
that other sources are used to create the plasma while a D.C.
voltage source is used to accelerate and implant the ions (Brief,
page 17; Shohet, col. 3, ll. 46-47; col. 6, ll. 14-16 and 37-42).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Brief and
Reply Brief, we determine that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference evidence.
Therefore we need not reach the issue of appellant’s evidence of
non-obviousness. See Geiger, supra. Accordingly, the examiner’s
rejection of claims 2-4 and 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Nakayama in view of Chan and Kruger further in view of Shohet or
Yoshida is reversed.
D. Summary
The rejection of claims 27-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Gruen in view of Chan and Matossian is reversed. The rejection of
claims 1, 5, 10 and 25-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nakayama in
view of Chan and Kruger is reversed. The rejection of claims 2-4
and 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nakayama in view of Chan and
Kruger further in view of Shohet or Yoshida is reversed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007