Appeal No. 2003-1162 Page 26
Application No. 09/468,292
The disclosure of Frigo would not have lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the
conclusion that heating will not work. Frigo discloses conducting the process “typically” at
ambient temperature (Frigo, col. 4, ll. 50-52). This does not preclude heating. In fact, Frigo
indicates that other temperatures may be selected: Frigo specifically states that the “liquid of
relatively low volatility ... is a liquid ... having a vapor pressure lower than that of the metal
precursor at the temperature of operation, typically ambient.” (Frigo, col. 4, ll. 30-35).
Heating, as acknowledged in Appellant’s specification, was conventional in the art
(specification, p. 3, ll. 7-16). The point of the process is to vaporize the precursor so it enters the
carrier gas (Frigo, col. 4, ll. 55-59; specification, p. 2, ll. 13-15 discusses vaporization in an
analogous process). Just as one must heat water to entrain enough water vapor in air to steam
vegetables, one must heat some precursors to entrain an adequate amount of the precursor in the
carrier gas for the CVD process. Appellant’s specification describes the prior art processes as
involving heating to vaporize the precursor (specification, p. 3, ll. 7-16) and one of ordinary skill
in the art would have recognized that such heating would be useful in the process of Frigo for
those precursors with inadequate vapor pressure at ambient temperature.
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the subject matter of claim 2, and claims 20-22, 33, and 58 that stand or fall therewith,
which has not been sufficiently rebutted by Appellant.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007