Appeal No. 2001-1092
Application No. 09/169,490
‘864 is directed to a metal target (see Example 1) while the
sputtering in a non-reactive atmosphere in Miyazaki ‘969 is
directed to a metal oxide target (see Example 1 and the Brief, page
9). The examiner has failed to convincingly establish why one of
ordinary skill in this art would have used the reactive sputtering
of Miyazaki ‘864 in the process of Miyazaki ‘969.
Additionally, as discussed above, the examiner has found two
other differences between Miyazaki ‘969 and the claimed subject
matter (Answer, page 5). It is the examiner’s position that
Miyazaki ‘864 teaches controlling the reactive atmosphere such that
there is 80% oxygen (i.e., Ar:oxygen = 2:8) “which is equivalent to
the gas composition given by the appellant [sic, appellants] in
Figure 9 examples H and J and thus the film deposited would have
the required planes.” Answer, page 7. We have discussed above
that the examiner has failed to convincingly show any reason or
motivation to use the reactive sputtering of Miyazaki ‘864 in the
process of Miyazaki ‘969. Furthermore, the examiner has failed to
point to any disclosure or teaching in Miyazaki ‘969 or ‘864
regarding the different levels of resistivity possible for the
metal film (claim 42), the different peaks of the (220) planes for
the silver film (claim 43), or the peaks for the (103) zinc oxide
planes (claim 47). The examiner has only cited disclosures from
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007