Appeal No. 2001-1812
Application No. 08/854,008
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 19, 20 and 23-25 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shiraishi or Hazuki or
Igarashi or Mikalesen in view of Demaray, the Asamaki article and
the Posadowski article; the remaining claims on appeal are
correspondingly rejected over these references and further in
view of various combinations of the other previously-listed
references relied upon by the examiner.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
discussion of the contrary viewpoints expressed by the appellants
and by the examiner concerning the above noted rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we cannot sustain any of
the rejections advanced by the examiner on this appeal except for
the rejections of independent claim 27 and of claim 28 which
depends therefrom.
Claims 1-16 and 18-26 are directed to a sustained self-
sputtering apparatus or method which includes a biasable grid
positioned between the target and support. With respect to these
claims, it is the examiner’s basic position that each of the
“primary” references to Shiraishi or Hazuki or Igarashi or
Mikalesen discloses an apparatus which is not sustained self-
sputtering as here claimed but which includes a biasable grid
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007