Appeal No. 2005-1503
Application No. 10/165,888
We refer to the case of In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 590, 172
USPQ 524, 526 (CCPA 1972). In this case, it is indicated that
for a proper anticipation rejection, the reference must clearly
and unequivocally disclose the claimed invention without any need
for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not
directly related to each other by the teachings of the reference.
In the instant case, many different deposition processes are
provided in Duncombe, and Keeble is yet another type of chemical
vapor deposition process. As such, we determine that because of
these multiple choices, there is a need for picking and choosing.
In view of the above, we therefore reverse the anticipation
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 9.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 3, 5, and 6 as being
obvious over Duncombe in view of Ma
We consider claim 3 in this rejection.
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
page 5 of the answer. Appellants’ position for this rejection is
set forth on page 3 of the brief.
Appellants repeat the aforementioned deficiencies of
Duncombe. Appellants also argue that the process in Ma involves
subsequent annealing, for recrystallization, prior to gate
deposition. Brief, page 3.
As discussed, supra, Duncombe does not disclose ion
bombardment. Because Duncombe does not teach ion bombardment,
there is no motivation to incorporate the specific type of ion
bombardment as set forth in Ma.
In view of the above, we therefore reverse the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 3, 5, and 6 as being obvious over
Duncombe in view of Ma.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007