Appeal No. 1999-2512
Application No. 08/888,499
film of Lane which would read on the film recited in the claims
since the amount of halogen is not specified in the claims on
appeal (Answer, page 13). However, the examiner incorrectly places
the burden of proof on appellant to "differentiate" over the amount
of fluorine that might be present in Lane, when the correct burden
of proof rests with the examiner. See In re Oetiker, supra. Since
the examiner has not met this burden of proof, by establishing the
amount of fluorine sensitivity in the RBS tests of Lane, on this
record we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection over Lane. We
note that the secondary references to Ishihara, Yamazaki, Kuyel,
and Chebi do not remedy the deficiency in Lane discussed above.
E. The Rejection over Homma
The examiner finds that Homma teaches production of a silicon
dioxide film with fluorine from a plasma deposition of TEOS and a
halogen containing compound (Answer, page 17). The examiner also
finds that Homma teaches a deposition technique including plasma
produced in a parallel plate reactor with a RF power source but
does not disclose use of dual frequency plasmas (id.). Therefore
the examiner applies Chebi or Nguyen for their "demonstrating the
known use of duel [sic, dual] frequencies with similar reactants
for analogous purposes." Answer, sentence bridging pages 17-18.
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007