Appeal No. 2005-0822
Application No. 09/825,612
through 18 on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Chang, as evidenced by Muller.3 (Answer at 5.)
We affirm these rejections.4
The appellants do not dispute the examiner’s factual finding
(answer at 3 and 6) that Chang discloses a method for making a
semiconductor device comprising forming a product in a PECVD
chamber using, inter alia, argon and TiCl4 and exposing a
substrate to the product. (Chang’s column 3, lines 2-59.) Nor
do they challenge the examiner’s determination (answer at 6) that
Chang’s method involves the use of the same materials or
reactants under substantially the same or similar conditions as
those disclosed in the present specification. Rather, it is the
appellants’ principal argument that the appealed claims are
patentable over Chang because the claims recite certain
properties for the gas (e.g., argon) not recognized by Chang.
3 [“Status of Claims” and “Issues” section] and 4-5; final Office
action at 2; appeal brief filed on Aug. 20, 2003 at 1-2.)
3 “[E]xtrinsic evidence may be considered when it is used
to explain, but not expand, the meaning of a reference.” In re
Baxter Travenol Laboratories, 952 F.2d 388, 390, 21 USPQ2d 1281,
1284 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
4 The appellants state that the appealed claims “do not
necessarily fall together” (appeal brief at 2) and provide
reasonably specific arguments with respect to certain groups of
claims in the “ARGUMENT” section of the appeal brief.
Accordingly, we will consider multiple groups of appealed claims
to the extent that the appeal brief complies with the
requirements of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2004)(effective Apr. 21,
1995).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007