Appeal No. 2005-0822
Application No. 09/825,612
claims would not inherently or necessarily occur in the prior art
process. Muller, which the examiner cites for the proposition
that a PECVD process is conducted in a closed chamber (answer at
9), merely states that a plasma is “an essentially neutral
mixture of excited gaseous species.” Furthermore, Chang
expressly states that it is well known that a plasma, which is a
mixture of ions and gas molecules, is formed by applying energy
to process gas. (Column 1, lines 64.) Thus, contrary to the
appellants’ apparent belief, Muller’s disclosure is by no means
indicative of the absence of ions in Chang’s PECVD process.
The appellants point out that “Chang’s hydrogen is a plasma-
forming gas, with argon included with it as an inert carrier.”
(Appeal brief at 8.) We note, however, that the appealed claims
recite that the charged species producer gas, excitation gas,
energy-transfer gas, and collider gas are all “chemically inert.”
Thus, Chang’s disclosure that argon acts as an inert carrier by
no means proves that the here recited functions are not inherent
or necessarily present in the prior art.
The appellants allege that Chang “does not appear to express
applying RF energy to argon.” (Appeal brief at 13.) This
allegation lacks factual foundation and is in direct conflict
with the teachings of Chang. (Column 3, lines 39-43.)
We have considered the appellants’ other commentaries in the
appeal brief and reply brief but find none of them to be
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007