Appeal No. 2002-1169
Application No. 09/252,845
gas ions in the plasma produced by the Gwinn apparatus would
inherently clean the electron source along with the arc chamber
walls in exactly the same way that occurs in the apparatus
claimed in the instant application.”
In response, appellants argue (brief, pages 3 and 4) that:
Gwinn does not bias the electron source to cause
cleansing, as stated in the Gwinn Summary, column 2,
lines 8-18:
“ . . . provides for an ion implantation system
that employs an ion source for ionizing and implanting
into a substrate a noble diluent gas and a particular
dopant gas. The noble diluent gas of the present
invention preferably does not react with the dopant
gas, or with dopant residue which coats the walls of
the ionization chamber of the ion source, thus allowing
the ion source to be used for accurate, stable low dose
implants. Additionally, the noble diluent gas does not
introduce conductivity altering ions, or impurities,
into the substrate S . . . . ”
It is respectfully submitted that the above makes
it evident that the Gwinn system does not bias for
cleansing of either the Gwinn walls or the Gwinn
electrode and teaches away from cleansing because
cleansing would introduce impurities into the
substrate, which is to be implanted.
The above is further emphasized in Gwinn column 5,
lines 41-49 . . . .
Based upon the referenced disclosure in Gwinn, appellants argue
(brief, page 5) that “Gwinn does not expressly or inherently
disclose Appellants’ claimed invention.” In response to the
examiner’s citation of a dictionary definition for the term
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007