Appeal No. 2000-1003
Application No. 08/631,465
ionize the material that is sputtered from the target” (column 5,
lines 45-46; emphasis added) and that “turning on the RF power to
the lower antenna does not affect the sputter rate of the target
but it does increase the bombardment energy and ionization of the
sputtered species onto the wafer” (column 6, lines 7-10; emphasis
added). These express teachings vitiate the appellants’ above
noted argument. This argument is also vitiated by the fact that
the rejected claims do not exclude target-particle ionization via
the intermediary of plasma enhancement which enhancement is
conceded by the appellants to be performed by patentee’s
antennas.
With respect to independent claim 34, the appellants
additionally argue that the Mosely reference fails to disclose an
electrostatic collimator grid as required by this claim. In
response to this argument, the examiner states that patentee’s
“collimator is an electrostatic collimator grid because it
creates a plane between the two plasmas which means the grid is
charged” (answer, page 12). We do not consider the examiner’s
position to be well taken. This is because Mosely expressly
teaches that his “collimation filter is connected to ground and
thus forms a ground plane separating the two cavities” (column 4,
lines 27-29). We do not perceive and the examiner does not
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007