Appeal No. 1999-2512
Application No. 08/888,499
F. Other Issues
As discussed above, we have determined that the examiner has
not shown or established that dual frequency plasma generation
occurs simultaneously. However, appellant admits that such a
plasma generation was known in the art for certain precursor gases
(specification, pages 4 and 14; see also Figures 2A-2F). In the
event of further prosecution before the examiner, the examiner and
appellant should consider the patentability of the claimed subject
matter in view of the cited prior art and appellants’ admission of
prior art.
G. Summary
The rejection of claims 29-38 and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is reversed. The rejection of claims 29-38 and
44 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of enabling
disclosure, is reversed. The rejection of claims 29-38 and 44
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for lack of written
description, is reversed.
The rejection of claims 29-30, 32-34, 38 and 44 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) over Nishiyama is affirmed. The rejection of
claims 39-40, 42-43 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) over
Nishiyama is affirmed. The rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C.
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007