Appeal No. 2004-0660
Application No. 10/120,116
OPINION
For the reason which follow, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s
§ 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 4 and 10 or his § 103
rejection of claims 4 and 10, but we will sustain the Examiner’s
§ 103 rejections of claims 1-3, 5-9 and 11.
In response to the § 112, first paragraph, rejection, the
Appellants have submitted a declaration (i.e., paper no. 13½, filed
with the brief on July 17, 2003) under 37 CFR § 1.132 by Dawn M.
Hopper. According to the Appellants, “as indicated in the
Declaration submitted herewith, a person of ordinary skill in
the art would recognize that a non-biased high density plasma
deposition process refers to not applying an external RF bias to
the wafer” (brief, page 6). Thus, the Appellants do not challenge
the Examiner’s reliance on the Vossen reference of record that
“substrates (even if they are grounded) are at a potential that is
negative with respect to the plasma” (page 54) vis-à-vis the
proposition that plasma deposition systems necessarily are biased.
Rather, it is the Appellants’ position that one having an ordinary
level of skill in the art would consider the “non-biased”
recitation in claims 4 and 10 as well as in the subject
specification as referring to “not applying an external RF bias
to the wafer” (brief, page 6).
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007