Appeal No. 2001-2107
Application No. 09/349,439
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 13, 14 and 17 through 23.
The examiner acknowledges (answer, page 3) that the method of forming a dielectric layer
during the vapor phase in Lampe “does not specifically disclose the application of RF bias to the
surface during a first portion of the deposition and removing it (RF bias) during a second portion of
the deposition.” According to the examiner (answer, page 3), “Wolf at page 174 teaches the pulsing
of the plasma to reduce the depletion effect nonuniformities.” Based upon the teachings of Wolf,
the examiner is of the opinion (answer, page 3) that “it would have been obvious to pulse the plasma
(i.e. apply the RF bias to the surface during a first portion of the deposition and removing it (RF
bias) during a second portion of the deposition[.]) In [sic, in the] Lampe process steps to reduce the
depletion effect nonuniformities.”
The response (brief, page 3) to the examiner’s position is that:
Appellants reply that the Wolf plasma pulses are contrary to the requirement
of the independent claims 13, 14, 17, and 23 in that the claimed deposition also
occurs when the bias is removed. Indeed, clause (d) of each of independent claims
17 and 23 explicitly has a second subfilm formed after removal of the applied bias.
In contrast, Wolf turns off the plasma and stops the deposition “so that during the off
phase of the duty cycle, fresh reactant gases fill the tube and replace depleted gases.”
Consequently, combining Wolf with Lampe does not suggest any of the independent
claims, and the claims are patentable over the references.
Lampe teaches that “[a]nother technique used to combat depletion effect nonuniformities is
to pulse the plasma, so that during the off phase of the duty cycle, fresh reactant gases fill the tube
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007