Appeal No. 2001-2455
Application 08/439,490
“since shielding is well known in the art to protect other parts
of the apparatus from contamination.” Id., page 5.
For the reasons set forth below, we find that the
examiner has failed to establish a teaching or suggestion for
each of the recited claim elements and, therefore, has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. We focus our
discussion of the rejections on each of the independent claims.
Claim 1
Claim 1 is directed to a replaceable sputtering target
which includes a recessed peripheral rim. The rim includes a
tension maintaining support structure fixed at the center of the
rear face, the rear face having an annular inner water-sealing
surface thereon surrounding the tension maintaining support
structure. Claim 1. The examiner concedes that the primary
references do not discuss a center tension supporting structure.
Examiner’s Answer, page 4. However, the examiner maintains that
“Urbanek in figure 2 clearly shows a tension supporting structure
is an integral part of the target or detachably connected.” Id.
While this may be true, the examiner has failed to offer any
explanation as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007