Appeal No. 2001-1812
Application No. 08/854,008
For the reasons set forth above, we cannot sustain any of
the examiner’s section 103 rejections of claims 1-16 and 18-26.
We reach a different conclusion regarding the section 103
rejections of claims 27 and 28. Concerning these rejections, the
only argument advanced by the appellants is that “Claim 27 . . .
recites a microTorr of pressure for sustained self-sputtering”
and that “the [applied prior] art does not teach such a low
pressure, and hence this claim must be held allowable” (brief,
page 12). As properly indicated by the examiner, however, the
abstract of Asamaki expressly teaches that “self-sputtering of
copper is performed in a wide pressure range of 10-2 Pa to 10-4
Pa.” The appellants’ apparent belief that Asamaki’s lower most
pressure of 10-4 Pa (which correspond to 0.75×10-6Torr and thus
falls within the here claimed range) relates to reactor
capability rather than operational pressure is not well taken
since it is contrary to the previously quoted, express disclosure
of Asamaki. In any event, if nothing else, Asamaki evinces that
the parameter of pressure constitutes an art-recognized variable
in a sustained self-sputtering operation, and it is generally
considered that it would have been obvious for an artisan to
determine workable or even optimum values for such an art-
recognized, result-effective variable. In re Woodruff, 919
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007