Appeal No. 2002-1148
Application 09/471,662
capable of being operated at an ion beam energy of about 50 eV or
less. As discussed above, the record indicates that Ceasar’s
sputtering apparatus, modified to have a negative biased sputter
target as suggested by King, would have that capability.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1.
The appellants’ sole argument regarding the dependent
claims, including claims to which additional references are
applied, is that the applied prior art does not remedy the
deficiency alleged by the appellants in Ceasar and King regarding
claim 1 from which these claims depend (brief, pages 8-9).
Because, as discussed above, we do not consider the alleged
deficiency in Ceasar and King to exist as to claim 1, we affirm
the rejection of dependent claims 2-7.
Claim 8
The appellants’ method claim 8 requires providing ions in
the form of an ion efflux having an energy of about 50 eV or
less.
The examiner argues that the Kaufman patent teaches that the
voltage used to accelerate the ions can be “one to several
thousand volts” (col. 4, line 21), which the examiner interprets
as meaning one volt to several thousand volts (answer, page 7).
Kaufman explains that what is meant is that the voltage can be
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007