Appeal No. 2004-0140
Application No. 10/154,729
into the hollow or cup shaped configuration. (Brief, p. 3).
The Examiner determined that the Kulkarni reference discloses a method for
forming a sputtering target assembly that comprises bonding a blank from the first
metallic material and a blank from a second metallic material together to form a
blank assembly. Subsequently, the blank assembly is then formed into the hollow or
cup shaped configuration. (Final Rejection, p. 3).
The Examiner determined that claims 27 to 34 are not fully supported by the
provisional application. Specifically, the Examiner determined that the claims
encompass the first bonding the first metallic material and the second metallic
material together to form a blank assembly. Subsequently, the blank assembly is
then formed into the hollow or cup shaped configuration.4 (Final Rejection, p. 5).
Appellants argue that “the Examiner has not compared the limitations of
claims 27-34 with the priority document to assess the support issue. Instead, the
Examiner improperly inserted additional limitations into claims 27-34 and then
found that those freshly inserted limitations were not supported in the priority
document. (Brief, p. 4). Appellants acknowledge that the subject matter of claim
27 encompasses the description of the Kulkarni reference identified by the
Examiner. (Brief, p. 5).
4 This is the same subject matter described by Kulkarni.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007