Appeal No. 2001-1776
Application No. 08/881,948
the examiner correctly notes that Fujitsu discloses a target
manufactured from a single material (Answer, page 3). Second, as
also noted by the examiner (Answer, page 5), Inoue teaches that
the target can be any one of a list of metals (col. 7, l. 62-col.
8, l. 5; see also col. 6, ll. 58-63). Finally, appellants have
not cited any part of Inoue that supports their argument that
this reference teaches away from the use of a single material
sputtering target (see col. 4, ll. 36-37, where the target plate
1a is aluminum, a single material; and col. 5, ll. 9-17, where
the device of Figure 3 produces a higher quality thin film due to
the removal of residual gases, not from the particular target
material).
Appellants argue that Wegmann does not show the concepts
absent from the references previously discussed (Brief, page 9).
Accordingly, we adopt the examiner’s factual findings and
conclusions of law regarding Wegmann, in combination with Fujitsu
and Zejda, for the reasons set forth in the Answer and as
discussed above.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Answer,
we determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case
of obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the
totality of the record, including due consideration of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007