Appeal No. 2004-0660
Application No. 10/120,116
deposition systems are biased” and that “[i]t is unclear what type
of plasma system is being used, or how a process that uses bias to
deposit material is non-biased [as required by rejected claims 4
and 10]” (answer, page 4).
Claims 1-3, 6, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Park in view of Yew and Vossen.
Claims 4, 5, 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Park, Yew and Vossen, as applied above,
and further in view of Wolf.
Finally, claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Park, Yew and Vossen, as applied above, and
further in view of Fukumoto.
On page 4 of the brief (also see page 2 of the reply brief),
the Appellants set forth the following claim groupings:
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 8-9 form a first group.
Claims 5 and 11 form a second group.
Claims 4, 7 and 10 should not be grouped
together and should be considered separately.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a thorough discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
the Appellants and by the Examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007