Appeal No. 1999-2122
Application No. 08/564,659
We reach a different conclusion with respect to appealed
claims 103, 107, 108, 111, 115, 120, 123, 124, 1474, 151, 172-174
and 176. According to the Appellant, “[t]hese claims recite that
the voltage between an anode and a target has a magnitude, and
the positive voltage on the anode has a magnitude, to obtain a
deposition of the sputtered atoms from the target on the substrate
with particular characteristics dependent upon the magnitude of the
anode voltage and the difference between the anode voltage and the
target voltage”, and it is argued that “[t]hese features are not
disclosed in any of the references” (brief, pages 31-32). This
argument is unpersuasive.
Like the above noted claims, the primary references disclose
apparatus and methods having voltages and magnitudes such that
3(...continued)
group (g)(e.g., as revealed by a comparison of this claim with
claim 149 which is associated with group (g)). For these
reasons, we have treated claim 148 as being in group (g).
4 The Appellant also has inappropriately listed appealed
claim 147 as being in group (f). Again, this claim does not
recite the feature associated with group (f). Instead, claim 147
recites a feature which has not been argued and which is
correspondingly recited in appealed claim 151. Under these
circumstances and in order to properly resolve the issues before
us on this appeal, we have treated claim 147 as being in the same
group as claim 151 which is group (h).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007